THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

Last updated: 24 November 2014

Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 7729
Last change to this ruleset: by Proposal 7729

Last ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 7 April 2014
Last ratification date: 1 May 2014

Highest Rule ID number ever assigned: 2445

Online documents:
  http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt (FLR)
  http://agora.qoid.us/current_slr.txt (SLR)
  http://agora.qoid.us/current_flr.txt,v (RCS history from 2001-)

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

Statistics

Current total number of rules: 77

Power distribution:
       1 with Power=4
       1 with Power=3.2
       1 with Power=3.1
      36 with Power=3
      12 with Power=2
       2 with Power=1.7
       2 with Power=1.5
      22 with Power=1

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

Index of Rules

      * The Game of Agora
      Rule  101: The Game of Agora
      Rule 2125: Regulation Regulations
      Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
      Rule 1688: Power
      Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
      Rule  104: First Speaker

      * Rules
      Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules
      Rule  217: Interpreting the Rules
      Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules
      Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply
      Rule  105: Rule Changes
      Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets
      Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
      Rule 2327: Read the Ruleset Week
      Rule 2429: Bleach
      Rule 2430: Cleanup Time

      * Players
      Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
      Rule 2139: The Registrar
      Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
      Rule 2130: How to be Shown the Door

      * Economy
      Rule 2434: GNP
      Rule 2435: Minister for GNP Evaluation
      Rule 2438: Ribbons
      Rule 2440: Word Cards
      Rule 2441: Shopping Periods
      Rule 2442: Inventory

      * Province of Agora
      Rule 2436: The Province of Agora
      Rule 2437: The Dungeon Master

      * Definitions
      Rule 1023: Common Definitions
      Rule 1769: Holidays
      Rule 2162: Switches
      Rule  478: Fora
      Rule 1728: Dependent Actions
      Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction

      * Offices
      Rule 1006: Offices
      Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties
      Rule 2379: No News Is Some News
      Rule 2160: Deputisation
      Rule 2154: Election Procedure
      Rule 2138: The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel
      Rule 1551: Ratification
      Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
      Rule 2201: Self-Ratification
      Rule  103: The Speaker
      Rule 2423: First Among Equals

      * Agoran Decisions
      Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
      Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
      Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
      Rule 2422: Voting Strength
      Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
      Rule 2168: Extending the voting period
      Rule  208: Resolving Agoran decisions
      Rule  955: Determining the Will of Agora
      Rule  879: Quorum
      Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges

      * Proposals
      Rule 2350: Proposals
      Rule 2445: How to pend a proposal
      Rule 2443: Expediting Proposals
      Rule  106: Adopting Proposals
      Rule 1607: Distribution
      Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
      Rule 2137: The Assessor
      Rule 2431: Proposal Competitions
      Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
      Rule 2444: Silver Quill

      * Adjudication
      Rule  991: Calls for Judgement
      Rule  591: Delivering Judgements
      Rule  911: Motions and Moots
      Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
      Rule 2426: Cards
      Rule 2427: Red Cards

      * Patent Titles and Degrees
      Rule  649: Patent Titles
      Rule 1367: Degrees
      Rule 2231: Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic
      Rule 2415: Badges

      * Trophies
      Rule 1727: Happy Birthday
      Rule 2029: Town Fountain

      (Garbage Bin)

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

Rules are listed as follows.  "nnnn" is the rule's ID number, loosely
regulated by Rule 2141; ID numbers are assigned in increasing order
and are never reused.  "r" is the rule's revision number, not defined
by the rules; any amendment (but not retitling or mutation) increases
this number.

Rule nnnn/r (Power=p)
Title of Rule

Annotations in square brackets are unofficial and have no legal force.
They are added at the Rulekeepor's discretion.

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

======================================================================
The Game of Agora
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 101/16 (Power=3)
The Game of Agora

      Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance
      with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of
      these actions via Fora in order to play the game.

      Please treat Agora Right Good Forever.

[CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.]

[CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if
no Rule says so.]

[CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according
to the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate
any retroactive changes made in the future.]

[CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those
who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they
have the rule-defined status of "player".]

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

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008
Retitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008
Amended(11) by Proposal 6028 (Murphy), 8 January 2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 6158 (Goethe), 31 March 2009
Amended(13) by Proposal 6589 (c.; disi.), 6 December 2009
Amended(14) by Proposal 7183 (G.), 26 February 2012
Amended(15) by Proposal 7596 (omd), 14 September 2013
Retitled and amended(16) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014

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

Rule 2125/8 (Power=3)
Regulation Regulations

      An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable,
      or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under
      which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would,
      as part of its effect, modify information for which some player
      is required to be a recordkeepor.

      Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the
      Rules.  The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe
      unregulated actions.

History:
Created by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 6251 (Murphy), 9 May 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6269 (Pavitra), 11 May 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6327 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014

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

Rule 2152/7 (Power=3)
Mother, May I?

      The following terms are defined.  These definitions are used
      when a rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in
      determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule
      includes a term otherwise.  Earlier definitions take precedence
      over later ones.  If a rule specifies one or more persons in
      connection with a term, then the term applies only to the
      specified person(s).

      1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID:  Attempts to
         perform the described action are unsuccessful.

      2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing
         the described action violates the rule in question.

      3. NEED NOT, OPTIONAL:  Failing to perform the described action
         does not violate the rules.

      4. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED:  Before performing the
         described action, the full implications of performing it
         should be understood and carefully weighed.

      5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful.

      6. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the
         rules.

      7. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY:  Failing to perform the
         described action violates the rule in question.

      8. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED:  Before failing to perform
         the described action, the full implications of failing to
         perform it should (in the ordinary-language sense) be
         understood and carefully weighed.

[CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules
within a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the
Rules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.]

[CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which
other players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself
a violation of that rule.]

[CFJ 2395 (called 1 March 2009): Even without this being explicitly
specified in the rules, it is possible for a non-player to violate a
rule by missing a deadline.]

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

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

[CFJ 2230 (called 16 October 2008): In a statement of the form "an
action that X may take", 'may' generally means 'might', i.e. CAN.]

[CFJ 2282 (called 19 November 2008): To state that an entity "MUST"
have certain properties refers to possibility, not legality.]

[CFJ 2414 (called 14 March 2009): A rule of the form "X SHOULD be
interpreted as Y" does not allow players to bypass the interpretation
by failing to perform the described action.]

History:
Created by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6983 (Murphy), 10 April 2011
Amended(7) by Proposal 7613 (Arufonsu), 11 January 2014

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

Rule 1688/6 (Power=3)
Power

      The Power of an entity is a non-negative rational number.  An
      Instrument is an entity with positive Power.

      The Power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as
      stipulated by the Rules.  All entities have Power zero except
      where specifically allowed by the rules.

      A Rule that secures a change, action, or value (hereafter the
      securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that
      change or action, or to set or modify that value, 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 (including by the Rule itself).

History:
Created by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6513 (coppro; disi.), 3 October 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6815 (Murphy, ais523), 4 September 2010

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

Rule 2140/1 (Power=3)
Power Controls Mutability

      No entity with power below the power of this rule can

      (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own.

      (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than
          its own.

      (c) set or 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.

[CFJ 2981 (called 21 March 2011): An attribute of an instrument is not
"modified" when an initial value is set for it.]

[CFJ 2945 (called 22 December 2010): An attribute of an entity is
"changed" when it is removed/unset.]

History:
Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(1) by Proposal 6992 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011

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

Rule 104/0 (Power=3)
First Speaker

      The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.

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

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

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995

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

======================================================================
Rules
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2141/8 (Power=3)
Role and Attributes of Rules

      A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the
      game generally, and is always taking effect.  A rule's content
      takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope.

      Every rule has power between one and four inclusive.  It is
      not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range.

      Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor.

      Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification.  If a
      rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign a
      title to it by announcement in a timely fashion.

      For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments,
      the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all
      substantive aspects of the rule.  However, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as
      described elsewhere in this rule.

[CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule's title is not strictly a
name for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the
uniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.]

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

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

History:
Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 6124 (ehird), 15 March 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6670 (coppro), 14 March 2010
Amended(6) by Proposal 6992 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011
Amended(7) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 March 2013
Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014

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

Rule 217/11 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules

      When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules
      takes precedence.  Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or
      unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense,
      past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the
      game.

      Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be
      applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an
      absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a
      statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not
      constitute proof that it is true.  Definitions in lower-powered
      Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common
      definitions of terms in higher-powered rules.

      Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that
      would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to
      resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation
      that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a
      person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial
      determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and
      without effect.

[CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language
qualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game
actions by messages in languages other than English.]

[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other
than English, and its intended audience does not understand the
language, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message
ineffective.]

[CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or
nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.]

[CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player's legal name (legal in eir
country of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to
em.]

[CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name
of an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a
person, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.]

[CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring
extensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient
degree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.]

[CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been
explicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not
implicitly defined by the context in which it is used.]

[CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a
message, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers,
can render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding
step requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.]

[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including
numerical character entity encoding) does not render a message
ineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a
header.]

[CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need
the RFC-required "MIME-Version:" header in order for it to be
interpreted in the MIME way.]

[CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase "AOL!" is not a
sufficiently clear synonym for "Me too!".]

[CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a
rule-defined term in its own way, and the contract's definition will
then apply in situations governed by the contract.]

[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a
meaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does
not unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a
meaning.]

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

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

[CFJ 2258 (called 6 November 2008): Changes in whitespace are also
inconsequential.]

[CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need
not necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or
Justices given in past CFJs.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995
Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 7351 (G., ais523, Machiavelli), 27 March 2013
Amended(8) by Proposal 7520 (omd), 19 July 2013
Amended(9) by Proposal 7584 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(10) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014
Amended(11) by Proposal 7662 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 1030/11 (Power=3.2)
Precedence between Rules

      In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by
      performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in
      this rule, until the conflict is resolved.

      - In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule
        with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the
        lower Power; otherwise,

      - If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their
        precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for
        determining precedence relations, then the determinations of
        the precedence-determining Rule shall be used to resolve the
        conflicts; otherwise,

      - If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of
        itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or
        takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then
        such provisions shall be used to resolve the conflict, unless
        they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise,

      - If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule
        with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise,

      - The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence.

      Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g.
      over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie,
      considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that
      are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described
      within the above sequence.

      No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to
      directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of
      determining precedence.  This applies to changes by the
      enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form.  This
      Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a
      change to the Ruleset.

[CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference
clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not
prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the
Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.]

[CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied
to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule
is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher
precedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic
  (unattributed)
Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 6285 (Goethe), 19 May 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009
Title changed by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009
Power changed from 3 to 3.2 by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009
Amended(9) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009
Amended(10) by Proposal 7235 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(11) by Proposal 7334 (woggle), 27 March 2013

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

Rule 2240/1 (Power=3)
No Cretans Need Apply

      In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one
      claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence;
      otherwise, the later clause takes precedence.

History:
Created by Proposal 6073 (Murphy), 22 February 2009
Amended(1) by Proposal 6429 (Murphy), 18 August 2009

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

Rule 105/11 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

      Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can,
      as part of its effect,

      (a) enact a rule.  The new rule has power equal to the minimum
          of the power specified by the enacting instrument,
          defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not
          specify or if it specifies a power less than one, and the
          maximum power permitted by other rules.  The enacting
          instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if
          present shall prevail.  The ID number of the new rule cannot
          be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so
          specify is null and void.

      (b) repeal a rule.  When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a
          rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record
          of it.

      (c) reenact a rule.  A repealed rule identified by its most
          recent rule number may be reenacted with the same ID number
          and the next change identifier.  If no text is specified,
          the rule is reenacted with the same text it had when it was
          most recently repealed.  If the reenacting proposal provides
          new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the
          same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the
          attempt to reenact the rule is null and void.

      (d) amend the text of a rule.

      (e) retitle a rule.

      (f) change the power of a rule.

      A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes.
      Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously.

      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
      change to be void and without effect.  An inconsequential
      variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not
      constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any
      other variation does.

      A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its
      full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear
      specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at
      least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise
      take effect.

      This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be
      created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can
      become a rule or cease to be a rule.

[CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a
low-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under
certain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by
this process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is
categorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different
from the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.]

[CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is
not a legal Rule Change.]

[CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to
amend by both number and title, and the number and title given
identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies
the attempted rule change.]

[CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.",
where XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule
changes.]

[CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX.  Amend rule NNNN by YYY.", this
constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both
attempt to amend the same rule.]

[CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX.  Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.",
where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two
separate attempts at rule changes.]

[CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.", where both XXX and YYY
specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule
change, even though it is specified in two parts.]

[CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form
of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY
specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule
change, even though it is specified in two parts.]

[CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single
rule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but
the other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.]

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

History:
Created by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Renumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February
  2007
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Retitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 6734 (comex), 6 June 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 6741 (comex; disi.), 1 July 2010
Amended(6) by Proposal 7433 (Walker), 27 May 2013
Amended(7) by Proposal 7607 (OscarMeyr), 13 December 2013
Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014
Amended(9) by SLR ratification (Proposal 7638; omd), 1 May 2014
Amended(10) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014
Amended(11) by Proposal 7710 (G.), 3 November 2014

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

Rule 1681/20 (Power=1)
The Logical Rulesets

      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.

      Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between
      categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty
      categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit.

      The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule's ID
      number, revision number, power, title, and text.

      The Rulekeepor is strongly DISCOURAGED from including any
      additional information in the SLR, except that which increases
      the readability of the SLR.

      The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) 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.

      The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e
      feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR.

      Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL
      record a historical annotation to the rule indicating:

      a) The type of change.

      b) The date on which the change took effect.

      c) The mechanism that specified the change.

      d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that
         proposal's ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any).

History:
Created by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008
Amended(14) by Proposal 6019 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(15) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(17) by Proposal 6124 (ehird), 15 March 2009
Amended(18) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(19) by Proposal 7599 (Walker), 14 September 2013
Amended(20) by Proposal 7604 (G.), 13 December 2013

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

Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)
The Rulekeepor

      The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for
      maintaining the text of the rules of Agora.

      The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical
      Ruleset.  The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full
      Logical Ruleset.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996
Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial
Infected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996,
  substantial (unattributed)
Amended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998
Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999
Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999
Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007

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

Rule 2327/1 (Power=1)
Read the Ruleset Week

      The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February
      is Read the Ruleset Week.  Agorans are encouraged to read the
      ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week.

History:
Created by Proposal 6973 (Murphy), 30 March 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 6995 (omd, harvel), 10 April 2011

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

Rule 2429/1 (Power=1)
Bleach

      Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different
      non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except
      for paragraph breaks.

History:
Created by Proposal 7665 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7709 (Murphy), 3 November 2014

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

Rule 2430/1 (Power=3)
Cleanup Time

      The Rulekeepor CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend
      any specified rule by:

        a) Changing the capitalization of a word, except to or from
           all caps.
        b) Changing visual formatting (such as the layout and
           bulleting of a list).
        c) Correcting formatting inconsistencies (such as doubled or
           skipped items in a list).

      Such a change SHALL NOT be made if it would plausibly affect the
      interpretation of a rule.

History:
Created by Proposal 7665 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7686 (omd), 7 August 2014

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

======================================================================
Players
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 869/37 (Power=3)
How to Join and Leave Agora

      Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and
      communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person.  Rules
      to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons.

      Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered
      (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
      citizenship are secured.  A registered person is a Player.

      A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the
      rules) register by publishing a message that indicates
      reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends
      to become a player at that time.  A person, by registering,
      agrees to abide by the Rules.  The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a
      person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful
      consent.

      A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement.
      If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days.

      The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players
      to unduly harass non-players.  A non-person CANNOT be a player,
      rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

[CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the
Rules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.]

[CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear
desire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for
registration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner
stipulated by the rules.]

History:
Created by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial
Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998
Amended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001
Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003
Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003
Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003
Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005
Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005
Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6349 (Pavitra), 17 June 2009
Amended(30) by Proposal 6382 (Murphy), 3 July 2009
Amended(31) by Proposal 6620 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010
Amended(32) by Proposal 6974 (Murphy), 30 March 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7269 (FKA441344, G.), 25 July 2012
Amended(34) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(35) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014
Amended(36) by Proposal 7619 (woggle), 24 January 2014
Amended(37) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2139/7 (Power=2)
The Registrar

      The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for
      keeping track of players.

      The Registrar's report includes:

      a) A list of all players, including information sufficient to
         identify and contact each player.
      b) The date on which each player most recently became a player.
      c) For each former player for which the information is
         reasonably available, the dates on which e registered and
         deregistered.

      The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches that
      would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the switch
      is defined as untracked.

[CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname
by announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current
nickname of another player.]

[CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname,
previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is
successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or
nickname.]

[CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined
element of the game.]

[CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily
published with the registrar's report, is part of the game state, even
though it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track
or publish it.]

History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 6322 (Wooble), 26 May 2009
Amended(3) twice by Proposal 6567 (Walker), 28 November 2009
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 6567 (Walker), 28 November 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 7141 (G.), 19 November 2011
Amended(5) by Proposal 7416 (omd), 12 May 2013
Amended(6) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(7) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014

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

Rule 1789/9 (Power=2)
Cantus Cygneus

      Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously
      by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part
      of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled
      a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir
      reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly.

      In a timely fashion after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
      Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
      Fugiendae Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the
      Player to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method
      of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar
      Reports.

      The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and
      the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that,
      henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of
      FAGE.

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

[CFJ 2358 (called 26 January 2009): A document which is labeled as a
Cantus Cygneus but does not actually detail grievances, etc. is not a
Cantus Cygneus.]

History:
Created by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001
Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October
  2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5991 (Elysion), 7 December 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6338 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013
Amended(9) by Proposal 7646 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2130/14 (Power=2)
How to be Shown the Door

      If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last
      month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection.

History:
Created by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 6100 (Pavitra; disi.), 22 February 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6666 (Murphy), 10 March 2010
Amended by Proposal 6959 (G.), 31 January 2011
Amended(12) by Proposal 6974 (Murphy), 30 March 2011
Amended(13) by Proposal 6984 (Murphy), 10 April 2011
Retitled and amended(14) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014

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

======================================================================
Economy
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2434/0 (Power=1)
GNP

      GNP (Gross Nomic Participation) is the number of messages
      published in the public fora in a specified period of time.

      Weekly GNP is the GNP measure for the period of time between the
      start of an Agoran Week and the start of the following Agoran
      Week. Monthly GNP is the GNP measure for the period of time
      between the start of an Agoran Month and the start of the
      following Agoran Month.

History:
Created by Proposal 7676 (Henri), 12 July 2014

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

Rule 2435/0 (Power=1)
Minister for GNP Evaluation

      The Minister for GNP Evaluation is an office; its holder is
      responsible for keeping track of the Agoran GNP.

      The Minister for GNP Evaluation’s weekly report includes:

      a) The Weekly GNP values of the previous ten weeks.
      b) The percent change of GNP between each consecutive week.
      c) The percent change of GNP between the first week and  the
         last week of the previous ten weeks.

      The Minister for GNP Evaluation’s monthly report includes:

      a) The Monthly GNP value of the previous twelve months.
      b) The percent change of GNP between each consecutive month.
      c) The percent change of GNP between the first and last months
         of the previous twelve months.

      The Minister for GNP Evaluation SHOULD maintain a publicly
      visible graphical representation of the information included in
      eir reports on the World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the
      address of this copy along with their published reports.

History:
Created by Proposal 7677 (Henri), 12 July 2014

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

Rule 2438/0 (Power=3)
Ribbons

      The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons.

      Ribbon Ownership is a person switch, tracked by the Tailor,
      whose values are the subsets of the set of types of Ribbon,
      defaulting to the empty set.

      To "award a person a <Ribbon type>" is to add that type of
      Ribbon to that person's Ribbon Ownership. A person "owns a
      <Ribbon type>" if that type of Ribbon is an element of eir
      Ribbon Ownership.

      While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon, any player can
      generally award em that type of Ribbon. A person qualifies for a
      type of Ribbon if e has earned that type of Ribbon within the
      preceding 7 days (including earlier in the same message) and has
      not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days.

      While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a
      Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game
      and a new game begins. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes
      the empty set. The beginning of a new game does not cause any
      changes to the game state not specified by the rules; in
      particular, Agora does not end and the ruleset remains
      unchanged. The Herald is then authorized to award that player
      the Patent Title of Champion.

      The types of Ribbon, and the methods of obtaining them, are as
      follows:

      Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one
      rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red Ribbon.

      Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on
      which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange
      Ribbon.

      Green (G): While a person has held an elected office
      continuously for 30 days, and has not failed to perform any
      duties of that office within the appropriate time limits during
      those 30 days, that person qualifies for a Green Ribbon.

      Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person
      earns a Cyan Ribbon.

      Blue (B): When a person assigns a judgement to a CFJ, and has
      never violated a time limit to assign a judgement to that CFJ,
      that person earns a Blue Ribbon.

      Magenta (M): During Agora's Birthday, each person who has
      publicly acknowledged the fact qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon.

      Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title
      Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon.

      Violet (V): When a person is awarded a Patent Title other than
      Champion or a degree, that person earns a Violet Ribbon.

      Indigo (I): When a person is awarded a degree, that person earns
      an Indigo Ribbon.

      Platinum (P): The Speaker qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon.

      Lime (L): A person qualifies for a Lime Ribbon if three or more
      proposals adopted in the preceding 7 days had that person as a
      coauthor.

      White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never
      previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous
      rulesets). A player who has been registered for at least 30 days
      and has never caused another person to gain a White Ribbon
      (including under a previous ruleset) CAN award a White Ribbon to
      another person by announcement.

      Black (K): Black Ribbons CANNOT be awarded except via proposal.
      This paragraph defers to all other rules.

History:
Created by Proposal 7698 (ais523), 3 November 2014
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 7725 (aranea), 16 November 2014

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

Rule 2440/0 (Power=1)
Word Cards

      Word Cards are a class of entities.  Each Word Card is labeled
      with one word, and belongs to exactly one player.  If the owner
      of a Word Card ceases to be a player, the Card is destroyed.
      For Word Card related purposes, a "word" is any sequence of
      English letters and punctuation, but not whitespace.

      King Azaz is an office.  Eir report contains a list of each Word
      Card's label and owner; such a list in a document purporting to
      be such a report is self-ratifying.

      A player CAN by announcement transfer a Word Card e owns to
      another player, or destroy a Word Card e owns.

History:
Created by Proposal 7711 (omd), 9 November 2014

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

Rule 2441/1 (Power=1)
Shopping Periods

      If it has been at least 5 days since the beginning of the
      current Shopping Period (or there is no current Shopping
      Period), King Azaz CAN initiate a Shopping Period by
      announcement, ending the previous one.  E SHALL initiate a new
      Shopping Period within 10 days after the beginning of a previous
      one.  Initiating a Shopping Period involves atomically
      performing the following steps:

      - Selecting the Shopping Rule, a Rule which has never before
        been the Shopping Rule, which SHALL be picked at random.  (If
        there is no such Rule, a Shopping Period NEED NOT be
        initiated.)

      - Awarding each player three Word Cards, each labeled with a
        word selected from the concatenation of all rule bodies (the
        words SHALL be picked at random with replacement).

      When correcting a botched Shopping Period initiation, King Azaz
      MAY and SHOULD reuse random values as appropriate instead of
      recalculating everything anew.

      Any player CAN, by announcement once per Shopping Period, trade
      in any Word Card e owns for one labeled with an arbitrary word
      from the body of the Shopping Rule.

History:
Created by Proposal 7711 (omd), 9 November 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7727 (omd), 24 November 2014

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

Rule 2442/0 (Power=1)
Inventory

      Any player CAN by announcement order a subset of the labels of
      eir Word Cards into a set of phrases; this is known as eir
      Inventory.  A player's Inventory remains in effect until e
      publishes a new one, or e no longer has Word Cards sufficient to
      construct the Inventory.

      For the purposes of roleplaying in the Province of Agora, the
      Dungeon Master SHOULD construe grammatically correct phrases in
      a player's Inventory as descriptions of things eir player
      character owns or possesses.  E may, however, reject illogical
      entities, and modify overpowered or unthematic items, as e sees
      fit.

History:
Created by Proposal 7711 (omd), 9 November 2014

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

======================================================================
Province of Agora
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2436/1 (Power=1)
The Province of Agora

      The Province of Agora is a subgame whose state comprises the
      imagined state of an imaginary region.

      Each player controls exactly one imaginary player character in
      the Province.  (If this character dies, a new one is created.)
      Whenever a player announces that this character takes an action,
      the Dungeon Master SHALL announce the imaginary result of the
      action in a timely fashion.  E MAY state that the result is
      anything whatsoever (subject to other rules), but e SHOULD
      choose a result that follows common sense, precedent, and Agoran
      consensus.

History:
Created by Proposal 7693 (aranea, Warrigal), 24 September 2014
Power changed from 1.1 to 1 by Proposal 7707 (Warrigal),
  3 November 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7707 (Warrigal), 3 November 2014

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

Rule 2437/1 (Power=1)
The Dungeon Master

      The Dungeon Master is an office.  The Dungeon Master's weekly
      report includes a summary of what has happened in the Province
      of Agora since the previous report.  The Dungeon Master's
      monthly report includes a summary of the entire publicly known
      state of the Province.  These summaries MAY be anything
      whatsoever (subject to other rules), but they SHOULD follow
      common sense, precedent, and Agoran consensus.

[! Rulekeepor note: There is a small chance this rule has been
   repealed.]

History:
Created by Proposal 7693 (aranea, Warrigal), 24 September 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7707 (Warrigal), 3 November 2014

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

======================================================================
Definitions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1023/33 (Power=2)
Common Definitions

      The following terms are defined:

      (a) The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days".
          This time period is set when the requirement is created
          (i.e. X days before the limit ends).  A requirement to
          perform an action at an exact instant (e.g.  "when X, Y
          SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is instead
          interpreted as a requirement to perform that action in a
          timely fashion after that instant.

      (b) Agoran epochs:

          (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC.

          (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday.

          (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of
              each Gregorian month.

          (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January,
              April, July, and October begin.

          (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January
              begins.

          (5) A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began
              (June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at
              which at least one person won the game.  When used as a
              period of time, a "game" is the period of time between a
              pivot and the next pivot.

          These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g.
          "within <number> days after <event>").

      (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a
          value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a
          regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without
          circularity or paradox) from information reasonably
          available, or if it alternates instantaneously and
          indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to
          be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate.

      (d) Two points in time are within a month of each other if:

          (1) they occur in the same Agoran month;

          (2) they occur in two consecutive Agoran months, and the
              later of the two occurs in an earlier day in the month
              than the earlier one;

          (3) they occur in two consecutive Agoran months on the same
              day of the month, and the later of the two occurs at the
              same or earlier time of day.

History:
Created by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994
Amended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994
Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996
Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996
Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996
Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000
Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002
Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 6046 (comex), 13 January 2009
Amended(25) by Proposal 6321 (Murphy; disi.), 26 May 2009
Amended(26) by Proposal 6535 (Murphy), 4 November 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6660 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(28) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(29) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012
Amended(30) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013
Amended(31) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013
Amended(32) by Proposal 7641 (scshunt), 12 May 2014
Amended(33) by Proposal 7686 (omd), 7 August 2014

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

Rule 1769/13 (Power=3)
Holidays

      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.

      The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Birthday,
      together with the following week, is a Holiday.

      If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs
      during a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate.

[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an
event for the purposes of Rule 1769.]

[CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined
period is an event for the purposes of Rule 1769.]

[CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to
occur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at
its specified time even if that is during a holiday.]

History:
Created by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008
Amended(7.1) by Proposal 6607 (coppro; disi.), 1 February 2010
Amended(7.2) by SLR ratification (Proposal 6806; coppro), 27 August
  2010
Amended(8) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(9) by Proposal 7150 (Murphy), 25 January 2012
Amended(10) by Proposal 7151 (Murphy), 25 January 2012
Amended(11) by Proposal 7262 (omd), 7 July 2012
Amended(12) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(13) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2162/5 (Power=2)
Switches

      A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a
      switch, and specify the following:

      a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch.
         No other entity possesses an instance of that switch.

      b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch,
         exactly one of which is designated as the default.  No other
         values are possible for instances of that switch.

      c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances
         of that switch.  That officer's report includes the value of
         each instance of that switch whose value is not its default
         value; a public document purporting to be this portion of
         that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that
         other instances are at their default value.

      At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one
      possible value for that type of switch.  If an instance of a
      switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value.
      If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a
      possible value, it comes to have its default value.

      "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a
      given value.  "To become X" (where X is a possible value of
      exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to
      X.

      If an action or set of actions would cause the value of an
      instance of a switch to become indeterminate, the instance
      instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if
      any, otherwise it takes on its default value.

      A natural switch is a switch with a default value of 0, unless
      the rules explicitly specify a different default value.  If the
      rules define an upper limit for the switch, then the possible
      values are non-negative integers not greater than that limit,
      otherwise the values are the non-negative integers.

      A singleton switch is a switch for which Agora Nomic is the only
      entity possessing an instance of that switch.

History:
Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 7247 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(3) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012
Amended(4) by Proposal 7425 (Walker, G., Murphy, omd), 27 May 2013
Amended(5) by Proposal 7649 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 478/32 (Power=3)
Fora

      Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
      any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
      shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall
      any person create physical or technological obstacles that
      unduly favor some players' fora access over others.

      Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
      Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  Changes to
      publicity are secured.

      The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign
      publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive
      messages there.

      The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without
      objection as long as:

      (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and

      (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which
          the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all
          existing public fora.

      Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public
      forum.

      A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent
      to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to
      be public.  A rule can also designate that a part of one public
      message is considered a public message in its own right. A
      person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public
      message.

      Where 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. Actions in messages
      (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear
      in the message, unless otherwise specified.

[CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into
multiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game
purposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the
single message.]

[CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is
obligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending
something to the PF.]

[CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can
receive the PF.]

[CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is
not necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.]

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

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

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

[CFJ 2214 (called 7 October 2008): Some IRC messages, such as NICK,
are sent to all members of an IRC channel but are not sent via that
channel.]

[CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is "received" when the
message enters the recipient's normal technical domain of control,
whether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared
machine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not
control it).]

[CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and
elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text 'with the
clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal'
(R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the
collection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.]

[CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum
is rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been
sent via a public forum.]

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

[CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion
Forum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not
qualify as sending it to all players.]

[CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in
the message body; the subject line is insignificant.]

[CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading
subject line does not deprive the message body of effect.]

[CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the
message body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not
have such an effect if it appears in the subject line.]

[CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is
a different action from publishing the whole message.]

[CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of "publishing" or
"announcing" is accomplished when the message has left the sender's
technical domain of control, indicated by one of the "Received:"
headers.]

[CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature
can't directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its
members sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement
says so.]

[CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the
fora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes,
and is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner
and type of participation.]

[CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not
publish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the
right of participation in the fora.]

[CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have
public messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that
allows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific
approval.]

[CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by
contractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by
announcement on eir behalf.]

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

[CFJ 2397 (caled 3 March 2009): A player can grant or revoke
permission at will for another player to act by announcement on eir
behalf.]

[CFJ 2322 (called 24 December 2008): The ability to act on behalf can
be created by any willful agreement.]

[CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one
wishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can
constitute an announcement that performs that action.]

[CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed
by announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case
that would result from that action does not constitute performing the
action.]

[CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007):
Saying "I do X 1000 times", where X is something that can be done by
announcement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of "I do
X", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count,
because it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances
of "I do X".]

[CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying "I do X 10000 times", where
X is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily
achieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of "I do
X" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is
abusive.  The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being
successful.]

[CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form "I
do X N times" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of "I do
X", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have
the effect of M instances of "I do X" for any non-zero repeat count
M.]

[CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will
accomplish an action even if its author believed the action was
impossible.]

[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be
retroactive.]

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

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

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

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

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

[CFJ 2179 (called 23 September 2008): An message-based action can be
taken even if its sender cannot be identified.]

[CFJ 2221 (called 13 October 2008): When an action is specified as
"can do X in order to do Y", and a player does X without specifying
intent to do Y, e does not do Y.]

[CFJ 2238 (called 22 October 2008): The requirement of unambiguous
specification applies to the parameters of an action.]

[CFJ 2363 (called 1 February 2009): "X can do Y by doing Z" does not
imply that X can do Z.]

[CFJ 2441 (called 6 April 2009): Due to a limitation of the mailing
list archives, attaching a message with a particular text does not
count as publishing that text.]

[CFJ 3025 (called 15 May 2011): If it is clear what he did, then it
must be clear what he did; if it is not clear what he did, then it is
not clear what he did.]

[CFJ 3106 (called 19 October 2011): When a person announces that "e
performs" an action, the referent of "e" (i.e. eir identity) must be
clear.]

[CFJ 3002 (called 19 April 2011): A message of the form "This
statement causes [action]" is ineffective as a way to perform
[action], and may be an attempt to act on behalf of the statement.]

[CFJ 2899 (called 12 November 2010): A player's real name does not
necessary identify em.]

History:
Created by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995
Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial
Amended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial
Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002
Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 6785 (coppro; disi.), 22 August 2010
Amended(29) by Proposal 6963 (Murphy), 20 March 2011
Amended(30) by Proposal 7073 (woggle), 16 June 2011
Amended(31) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014
Amended(32) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014

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

Rule 1728/33 (Power=3)
Dependent Actions

      A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to
      perform an action by a set of one or more of the following
      methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified):

       1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no
          greater than 8.  ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this
          method with N = 1.)
       2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer.  ("With
          Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.)
       3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1
          with a minimum of 1.
       4) With Notice.

      thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all
      of the following are true:

       a) 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 or notice) at least 4 days earlier.

       b) At least one of the following is true:

            1) The performer is the initiator.

            2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due
               to holding a rule-defined position now held by the
               performer.

            3) 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.

       c) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by
          other rules.

       d) If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was
          given in the announcement of intent to perform the action,
          all those conditions are met.

      The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action
      depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on
      objections.

[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need
not be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description
suffices, as does the rule-defined term.]

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

History:
Created by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000
Amended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001
Amended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003
Amended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008
Amended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008
Amended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008
Amended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(23) by Proposal 6041 (Murphy, Warrigal), 13 January 2009
Amended(24) by Proposal 6204 (Murphy), 27 April 2009
Amended(25) by Proposal 6437 (Murphy), 18 August 2009
Amended(26) by Proposal 6448 (BobTHJ), 27 August 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6474 (c.), 15 September 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6512 (c.; disi.), 3 October 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6619 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010
Amended(30) by Proposal 6650 (coppro), 10 March 2010
Amended(31) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011
Amended(32) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013

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

Rule 2124/18 (Power=2)
Agoran Satisfaction

      A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has
      publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for
      an announcement of intent to perform the action.  An Objector to
      a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted
      (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent
      to perform the action.

      The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action
      are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the
      document authorizing the dependent action.  However, the
      previous sentence notwithstanding, the Executor of the
      announcement of intent is not eligible to support it.

      Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
      if and only if:

      (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then
          it has fewer than N objectors;

      (2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it
          has N or more supporters; and

      (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.

      The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections,
      and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24
      hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent.

      The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with the
      intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours.

      A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent
      before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the
      same type of response.

History:
Created by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21
  February 2008
Retitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008
Amended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 6027 (Elysion), 8 January 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6306 (Murphy), 26 May 2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 6410 (coppro; disi.), 30 July 2009
Amended(13) by Proposal 6448 (BobTHJ), 27 August 2009
Amended(14) by Proposal 6475 (c.; disi.), 15 September 2009
Amended(15) by Proposal 6512 (c.; disi.), 3 October 2009
Amended(16) by cleaning (Keba), 20 August 2010
Amended(17) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7668 (scshunt), 3 June 2014

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

======================================================================
Offices
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1006/37 (Power=2)
Offices

      Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the IADoP, with
      possible values of any person or "vacant".  An officer is the
      holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that
      office.  If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it
      becomes vacant.

      An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule
      defining it.  All others are elected.  A person CANNOT be made
      the holder of an elected office without eir explicit or
      reasonably implied consent.

      The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement,
      causing it to become vacant. Any player CAN cause an office to
      become vacant without 2 objections.

[CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning
of the term "office", in the sense meant by Rule 754, but rather
references the usual English definition of "office" and governs
offices as thus defined.]

[CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to
an officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is
vacant at the time.]

History:
Created by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993
Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993
Amended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6372 (G.), 23 June 2009
Amended(29) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009
Amended(30) by Proposal 6482 (c.), 18 September 2009
Amended(31) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010
Amended(32) by Proposal 6790 (Wooble), 27 August 2010
Amended(33) by Proposal 6959 (G.), 31 January 2011
Amended(34) by Proposal 7272 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Amended(35) by Proposal 7403 (omd), 27 April 2013
Amended(36) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(37) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014

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

Rule 2143/24 (Power=1)
Official Reports and Duties

      For each person:

      a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's
         weekly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each
         week.  If any information is defined by the rules as part of
         that person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such
         information, and the publication of all such information is
         part of eir weekly duties.

      b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's
         monthly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each
         month.  If any information is defined by the rules as part of
         that person's monthly report, then e SHALL maintain all such
         information, and the publication of all such information is
         part of eir monthly duties.

      Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's
      report, without specifying which one, is part of eir weekly
      report.  Failure of a person to perform any duty required of em
      within the allotted time is the Class-2 crime of Tardiness.

      An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules
      specifically assign to that office's holder in particular
      (regardless of eir identity).

      A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or
      misleading while performing an official duty, or within a
      document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly
      or monthly report.

      Reports SHALL be published in plain text.  Tabular data must
      line up properly when viewed in a monospaced font.  Publishing a
      report that deviates from these regulations is the Class 2 Crime
      of Making My Eyes Bleed.

      Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their
      reports on the World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the
      address of this copy along with their published reports.

[CFJ 2392 (called 27 February 2009): Publishing an intentionally
incomplete report does not satisfy this rule's requirement to publish
a report.]

History:
Created by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 6030 (Murphy; disi.), 8 January 2009
Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6155 (comex), 31 March 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6224 (comex), 27 April 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 6322 (Wooble), 26 May 2009
Amended(9) by Proposal 6368 (C-walker), 23 June 2009
Amended(10) by Proposal 6428 (BobTHJ), 18 August 2009
Amended(11) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010
Amended(12) by Proposal 6664 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(13) by cleaning (Murphy), 29 July 2010
Amended(14) by Proposal 6967 (Wooble), 20 March 2011
Amended(15) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(16) by Proposal 7313 (Machiavelli), 27 September 2012
Amended(17) by Proposal 7451 (omd), 10 June 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7544 (Machiavelli), 30 July 2013
Amended(19) by Proposal 7563 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(20) by Proposal 7599 (Walker), 14 September 2013
Amended(21) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013
Amended(22) by Proposal 7648 (omd), 3 June 2014
Amended(23) by Proposal 7697 (omd), 23 October 2014
Amended(24) by Proposal 7704 (G.), 3 November 2014

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

Rule 2379/0 (Power=1)
No News Is Some News

      If the rules define a report as including a list, then while
      that list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is
      empty.

History:
Created by Proposal 7286 (FKA441344), 9 September 2012

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

Rule 2160/13 (Power=3)
Deputisation

      Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a
      particular office (deputise for that office) if all of the
      following are true:

        (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).  This requirement is fulfilled by the deputy
            performing the action.

        (b) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be
            performed has expired, or the office is vacant.

        (c) If the office is filled, then the deputy announced between
            two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise
            for that office for the purposes of the particular action.

        (d) It would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action,
            other than by deputisation, if e held the office.

        (e) The deputy, when performing the action, announces that e
            is doing so by deputisation.

      When a player deputises for an elected office, e becomes the
      holder of that office.

      A rule which purports to allow a person (a special deputy) to
      perform an action via special deputisation for an office thereby
      allows them to perform the action as if e held the office, as
      long as

        (a) it would be POSSIBLE for the special deputy to perform the
            action, other than by special deputisation, if e held the
            office, and

        (b) the special deputy, when performing the action, announces
            that e is doing so by special deputisation.

      Special deputisation is not a type of deputisation, and
      therefore does not generally have the effects that deputisation
      has.

[CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an
action, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication
from rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.
In particular, it is possible to deputise to rotate the bench.]

[CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as
if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and
lost it immediately after.]

History:
Created by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 5983 (Warrigal), 29 November
  2008
Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 6129 (Goethe), 15 March 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6144 (Wooble), 23 March 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6218 (Murphy), 27 April 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6482 (c.), 18 September 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 7300 (scshunt), 27 September 2012
Amended(9) by Proposal 7403 (omd), 27 April 2013
Amended(10) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(11) by Proposal 7651 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(12) by Proposal 7652 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(13) by Proposal 7713 (Warrigal), 9 November 2014

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

Rule 2154/47 (Power=2)
Election Procedure

      A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office
      for which no election is already in progress

      a) by announcement, if e is the IADoP, if the office has been
         deputised for within the past two weeks, or if no election
         has been initiated for the office either since the last time
         a player won the game or within the past 90 days;

      b) with 4 Supporters, otherwise.

      After the election is initiated, any player CAN once initiate an
      Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder, and the IADoP
      SHALL do so in a timely fashion if no one else does first.  For
      this decision, the valid options are the players and the vote
      collector is the IADoP. Upon the resolution of this decision,
      its outcome, if a player, is installed into office, and the
      election ends.

History:
Created by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Amended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008
Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008
Amended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008
Amended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008
Amended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008
Amended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008
Amended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008
Amended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008
Amended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008
Amended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008
Amended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(21) by Proposal 6157 (Goethe, OscarMeyr, Wooble), 31 March
  2009
Amended(22) by Proposal 6293 (Goethe), 19 May 2009
Amended(23) by Proposal 6296 (Murphy), 19 May 2009
Amended(24) by Proposal 6305 (Taral), 26 May 2009
Amended(25) by Proposal 6356 (Yally), 23 June 2009
Amended(26) by Proposal 6396 (Yally), 17 July 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6411 (Yally), 30 July 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6651 (coppro), 10 March 2010
Amended(30) by Proposal 6665 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010
Amended(31) by Proposal 6696 (coppro), 25 April 2010
Amended(32) by Proposal 6845 (Tanner L. Swett), 3 October 2010
Amended(33) by Proposal 6969 (Murphy), 20 March 2011
Amended(34) by Proposal 6972 (G.), 30 March 2011
Amended(35) by Proposal 7425 (Walker, G., Murphy, omd), 27 May 2013
Amended(36) by Proposal 7465 (Walker), 17 June 2013
Amended(37) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013
Amended(38) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(39) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(40) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(41) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(42) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(43) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014
Amended(44) by Proposal 7645 (omd), 3 June 2014
Amended(45) by Proposal 7654 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(46) by Proposal 7658 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(47) by Proposal 7684 (scshunt), 1 August 2014

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

Rule 2138/20 (Power=1)
The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel

      The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel (IADoP) is an
      office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers.

      The IADoP's report includes the following:

      a) The date of the last change (if any) to each office's
         Officeholder.
      b) The date on which the most recent election for each office
         was initiated.

      Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, cause this Rule to amend
      itself by replacing "Interstellar" with any other single word
      beginning with "Inter" in its text and title.

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

History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008
Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 6230 (Wooble), 4 May 2009
Amended(9) by Proposal 6282 (Yally), 19 May 2009
Amended(10) and title changed by Proposal 6377 (coppro; disi.),
  3 July 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6493 (coppro; disi.), 18 September 2009
Retitled and amended(12) by Proposal 6667 (Murphy), 10 March 2010
Retitled and amended(13) by Proposal 6975 (Murphy), 30 March 2011
Amended(14) by Proposal 7465 (Walker), 17 June 2013
Amended(15) by Proposal 7483 (scshunt), 9 July 2013
Amended(16) by Proposal 7524 (scshunt), 19 July 2013
Amended(17) by Proposal 7566 (Walker), 24 August 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(19) by Proposal 7663 (omd), 3 June 2014
Amended(20) by Proposal 7649 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 1551/18 (Power=3.1)
Ratification

      A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message.

      When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be
      if, at the time the ratified document was published, the
      gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified
      document as true and accurate as possible.  Such a modification
      cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules,
      and it cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document
      explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the
      resulting properties of the rule(s).  If no such modification is
      possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible
      modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification
      fails.

      An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be
      ratified; however, if such a document can be divided into a
      summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of
      the summary section is to summarize information in the main
      section, and the main section is internally consistent,
      ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only
      the main section.

      Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g.
      a report's date of last ratification) is excluded from
      ratification. The rules may define additional information that
      is considered to be part of the document for the purposes of
      ratification; such definitions are secured at a Power
      Threshold of 3.

      Ratifying a public document is secured with power threshold 3.

[CFJ 2165 (called 16 September 2008): Ratification can create legal
fictions, but does not always.]

[CFJ 3155 (called 26 January 2012): A "recent history" section of a
report is not considered binding as a complete list of certain types
of events during a certain date range.]

History:
Created by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008
Amended(13) by Proposal 6570 (Murphy), 28 November 2009
Power changed from 3 to 3.1 by Proposal 6806 (coppro), 27 August 2010
Amended(14) by Proposal 6930 (ais523), 2 January 2011
Amended(15) by Proposal 6938 (omd), 2 January 2011
Power changed from 3.1 to 3 by SLR ratification (Proposal 6839; omd),
  2 January 2011
Power changed from 3 to 3.1 by Proposal 7262 (omd), 7 July 2012
Amended(16) by Proposal 7568 (omd, Fool), 24 August 2013
Amended(17) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7664 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2202/6 (Power=3)
Ratification Without Objection

      Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
      specifying its scope.

      Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal,
      amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the
      contrary notwithstanding.

      A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use
      Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to
      ratification) document containing incorrect or Indeterminate
      information when a corrected document could be produced with
      reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the document's
      error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly
      described in the announcement of intent.  Such ratification
      or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of
      Endorsing Forgery.

[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official
document affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to
be part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally
reported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on
certain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list
of players.]

[CFJ 2289 (called 25 November 2008): Ratification Without Objection of
a value inseparable from another value may change the latter value
even if it is not directly part of the report being ratified.]

History:
Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 6048 (Wooble), 13 January 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6174 (woggle), 7 April 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6340 (G.), 11 June 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 6754 (coppro; disi.), 2 August 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 7451 (omd), 10 June 2013
Amended(6) by Proposal 7680 (scshunt), 12 July 2014

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

Rule 2201/6 (Power=3)
Self-Ratification

      A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is
      ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week.

      A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following
      methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and
      nature of a perceived error in it:

       a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal
          interpretation.

       b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact.  The
          publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required
          to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of
          the following in a timely fashion:

              i) Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt).
             ii) Publish a revision.
            iii) Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the
                 claim (if the subject is actually a matter of law),
                 or cite a relevant existing inquiry case.

[CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying
document [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran
decision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually
or as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some
aspect of it.]

[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of
a self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.]

History:
Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 6106 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6243 (Murphy), 9 May 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6622 (Murphy), 20 February 2010
Amended(4) by Proposal 6744 (Murphy), 1 July 2010
Amended(5) by Proposal 6922 (Murphy; disi.), 2 January 2011
Amended(6) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013

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

Rule 103/21 (Power=2)
The Speaker

      The Speaker is an imposed office and the figurehead leader of
      Agora.

      The player or players who have most recently won the game are
      called Laureled. If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant,
      or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime Minister
      CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a Laureled
      player to the office of Speaker.

      The offices of the Speaker and the Prime Minister are
      incompatible. If at any point in time one player holds both of
      these offices, e ceases to hold the position of Prime Minister.

      For an election of the Prime Minister, the Speaker has voting
      strength one greater than e would have if e did not hold the
      office.

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999
Retitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008
Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6490 (coppro), 18 September 2009
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 6821 (G., ais523), 4 September
  2010
Amended(7) by Proposal 6821 (G., ais523), 4 September 2010
Retitled by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(8) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(9) by Proposal 7006 (Walker), 20 April 2011
Amended(10) by Proposal 7084 (omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(11) by Proposal 7323 (Machiavelli), 11 January 2013
Amended(12) by Proposal 7336 (woggle), 27 March 2013
Amended(13) by Proposal 7340 (G.), 27 March 2013
Amended(14) by Proposal 7375 (G.), 20 April 2013
Amended(15) by Proposal 7465 (Walker) 17 June 2013
Amended(16) by Proposal 7486 (scshunt), 9 July 2013
Amended(17) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7631 (scshunt), 14 April 2014
Amended(19) by Proposal 7633 (scshunt), 1 May 2014
Amended(20) by Proposal 7650 (scshunt, G.), 3 June 2014
Amended(21) by Proposal 7690 (aranea), 24 September 2014

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

Rule 2423/0 (Power=2)
First Among Equals

      The Prime Minister is an office. The Prime Minister is elected
      by the players of Agora primarily on account of not being the
      other guy. The Prime Minister SHOULD ensure that Agoran affairs
      proceed smoothly.

      The holder of the office of Prime Minister has voting strength
      one greater than e would have if e did not hold the office. This
      does not apply in respect of an election of the Prime Minister.

History:
Created by Proposal 7633 (scshunt), 1 May 2014

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

======================================================================
Agoran Decisions
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 693/14 (Power=3)
Agoran Decisions

      When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the
      decision-making process takes place in the following three
      stages, each described elsewhere:

          (a) Initiation of the decision.
          (b) Voting of the people.
          (c) Resolution of the decision.

      When submitting a ballot, a player can select PRESENT (syn.
      ABSTAIN) rather than one of the options provided by the
      decision. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a ballot cast
      for PRESENT is considered to be a valid ballot, but, unless
      specified otherwise, does not count as a valid option.

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995
Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998
Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(10) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6441 (Murphy; disi.), 27 August 2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 6452 (Murphy; disi.), 27 August 2009
Amended(13) by Proposal 6465 (coppro; disi.), 15 September 2009
Amended(14) by Proposal 6617 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010

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

Rule 107/17 (Power=3)
Initiating Agoran Decisions

      An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to
      initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent
      to initiate the decision.  This notice is invalid if it lacks
      any of the following information, and the lack is correctly
      identified within one week after the notice is published:

      (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of
          proposal 4781").

      (b) A clear indication of the options available.

      (c) The identity of the vote collector.

      (d) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential
          parameters.

      The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting
      period for the decision.  The voting period lasts for 7 days.
      The minimum voting period for a decision with at least two
      options is five days.  The vote collector for a decision with
      less than two options CAN and SHALL end the voting period by
      announcement, if it has not ended already, and provided that e
      resolves the decision in the same message.

      The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a
      duration longer than fourteen days.

[CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and
the information required in the notice need not be explicit.]

[CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention
voter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the
rule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines
the class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly
describes the class of eligible voters.]

[CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly
presented in the notice takes precedence over any information that
would be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate
and the implicit information would have been accurate.]

[CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran
decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and
there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which
voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of
the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable
public agreement on which persons are eligible.]

[CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran
decision can change during its voting period.]

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008
Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6157 (Goethe, OscarMeyr, Wooble), 31 March
  2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 6816 (G., Keba), 4 September 2010
Amended(13) by Proposal 6945 (Murphy, omd; disi.), 16 January 2011
Amended(14) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011
Amended(15) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(16) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013
Amended(17) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014

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

Rule 683/20 (Power=3)
Voting on Agoran Decisions

      An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing
      a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e
      selects.  To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following
      conditions:

      (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
          decision.

      (b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
          initiation of the decision, a player.

      (c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

      (d) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the
          voter.

      (e) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
          voting period.  ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
          retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)

      (f) At the time of the submission of the ballot, the voter did
          not have another valid ballot on the same decision.

      The strength of an option is the total voting strength of all
      voters with valid ballots cast for that option.

[CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To "clearly identif[y] the matter
to be decided" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.]

[CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more
votes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the
making of a false statement.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998
Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999
Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(15) by Proposal 6378 (Murphy), 3 July 2009
Amended(16) by Proposal 7032 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(17) by Proposal 7077 (omd), 16 June 2011
Amended(18) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(19) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014
Amended(20) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2422/0 (Power=3)
Voting Strength

      The voting strength of an entity is an integer between 1 and 5
      inclusive, defined by rules of power 2 or greater. If not
      otherwise specified, the voting strength of an entity is 1.

History:
Created by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014

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

Rule 2127/8 (Power=3)
Conditional Votes

      If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g.
      "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected
      option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at
      the end of the voting period, and, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value
      of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting
      period.  If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of
      PRESENT is cast.

      Casting 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.

      Casting 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.

[CFJ 2449 (called 14 April 2009): For an endorsement or denouncement,
the identity of the voter in question is part of the condition.]

History:
Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006
Amended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 6331 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6383 (Murphy), 3 July 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 7447 (omd), 10 June 2013
Amended(8) by Proposal 7447 (omd), 10 June 2013

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

Rule 2168/7 (Power=1)
Extending the voting period

      Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and
      the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting
      period for that decision is instead increased to 14 days, except
      if it is already that length, provided this has not already
      happened for the decision in question.

      Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision
      SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who
      have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible, and
      CAN end its voting period by announcement (resolving it
      constitutes an implicit announcement that its voting period is
      first ended) if the result would no longer be FAILED QUORUM, or
      if the decision is whether to adopt a proposal and no voter
      (other than possibly the proposal's author) has voted FOR.

History:
Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 6115 (Murphy), 1 March 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6294 (Yally), 19 May 2009
Amended(4) by Proposal 6328 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 6329 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6504 (Murphy; disi.), 3 October 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011

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

Rule 208/10 (Power=3)
Resolving Agoran decisions

      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 in a
      timely fashion after the end of the voting period.  To be valid,
      this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:

      (a) It is published after the voting period has ended.

      (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved.

      (c) It specifies the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if
          there was more than one valid option, provides a tally of
          the voters' valid ballots on the various options.

      Each 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.

      This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide
      another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved.

      In general, changes to the gamestate due to the outcome of an
      Agoran decision take effect when the decision is resolved.

[CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice
refers via a References: header to a previous notice with an
incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give
revised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.]

[CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice
refers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an
incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give
revised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.]

[CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice
includes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice
invalid.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June
  2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 6746 (coppro; disi.), 1 July 2010
Amended(9) by Proposal 7259 (Murphy), 6 July 2012
Amended(10) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013

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

Rule 955/18 (Power=3)
Determining the Will of Agora

      After an Agoran Decision's voting period ends, it has an outcome
      (syn. "the <appropriate noun> chosen by Agora").

      (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number
          of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than
          quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the
          remainder of this rule.  Otherwise, the decision achieved
          quorum.

      (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then if the strength
          of FOR is greater than the strength of AGAINST, and the
          ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST is
          greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index (or
          the strength of AGAINST is zero), then the outcome is
          ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED.

      (c) Otherwise, the outcome is the option 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 options, the outcome
          is null.

[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is
determined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations
described in Rule 955.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993
Amended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993
Amended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993
Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993
Amended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998
Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002
Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002
Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008
Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008
Amended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(16) by Proposal 6336 (coppro; disi.), 29 May 2009
Amended(17) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009
Amended(18) by Proposal 7238 (omd), 10 June 2012

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

Rule 879/32 (Power=2)
Quorum

      Quorum for an Agoran Decision is equal to the number of players
      who voted on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt
      a proposal, minus 3.

[CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not
count towards quorum.]

[CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision
changes as the set of eligible voters changes.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994
Amended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995
Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998
Amended(8) by Proposal "A Separation of Powers" (Steve, Without
  Objection), Apr. 20 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000
Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000
Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000
Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002
Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002
Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002
Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002
Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002
Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005
Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007
Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007
Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 7317 (omd), 16 October 2012
Amended(29) by Proposal 7552 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(30) by Proposal 7612 (ais523), 11 January 2014
Amended(31) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014
Amended(32) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2034/8 (Power=3)
Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges

      A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
      constitutes self-ratifying claims that

       a) such a decision existed,
       b) it was resolved as indicated, and
       c) (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a
          proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect.

History:
Created by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002
Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 6139 (Murphy), 15 March 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6180 (Murphy; disi.), 7 April 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 7355 (ais523), 7 April 2013
Amended(8) by Proposal 7585 (omd), 24 August 2013

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

======================================================================
Proposals
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2350/8 (Power=3)
Proposals

      A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and
      other attributes.  A player CAN create a proposal by
      announcement, specifying its text and optionally specifying any
      of the following attributes:

      * An associated title.
      * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the
        author).
      * An adoption index.

      Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool.  Once a
      proposal is created, nether its text nor any of the
      aforementioned attributes can be changed.  The author (syn.
      proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted it.

      If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as
      FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add
      the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement.

      The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn.
      retract, withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement.

[CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with
the heading "Proposal:" and a title can be sufficient to clearly
indicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it
can be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.]

[CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with
the question "What is the title of this proposal?" can be sufficient
to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.]

History:
Created by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7086 (G., omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7216 (omd), 4 May 2012
Amended(3) by Proposal 7225 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(4) by Proposal 7241 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(5) by Proposal 7245 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(6) by Proposal 7250 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(7) by Proposal 7653 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Amended(8) by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014

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

Rule 2445/0 (Power=1)
How to pend a proposal

      Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by
      proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending"
      or "not pending" (default).

      Spending power is a natural office switch tracked by the IADoP.
      Its default value is 1. The holder of an office CAN make a
      proposal pending; e can do this a number of times each Agoran
      week not exceeding the spending power of that office.

      The Rulekeepor, Speaker and Prime Minister each have a
      spending power of 2. The Promotor has a spending power of
      4.

      Changes to imminence and spending power both are secured.

History:
Created by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014

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

Rule 2443/0 (Power=3)
Expediting Proposals

      A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most
      1.5, in a message containing the character string "[Expedition]"
      in the subject line,

        (a) by specially deputising for the Promotor to distribute the
            proposal, if it has not been distributed; or
        (b) by announcement, otherwise.

      If, in an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, the strength of
      AGAINST is zero, and the proposal was expedited at least 7 days
      earlier, then any player CAN specially deputise for the Assessor
      to resolve the decision.

History:
Created by Proposal 7713 (Warrigal), 9 November 2014

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

Rule 106/35 (Power=3)
Adopting Proposals

      When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved,
      if the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED, then the proposal in
      question 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.  Except as prohibited
      by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as
      part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies.  If the
      proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude
      the other changes from taking place.

      If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal
      that has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take
      effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

      Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change;
      this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified
      areas of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself from
      taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as
      applying only to the rest of the proposal).

[CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two
separate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the
attempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the
possible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly
requires a different resolution.]

[CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to
have retroactive effect.]

[CFJ 2162 (called 14 September 2008): The retroactive effect of a
proposal cannot actually alter the past.]

[CFJ 2163 (called 14 September 2008): There is no possible proposal
text that would cause a proposal to take effect without being
adopted.]

[CFJ 2259 (called 6 November 2008): The possibility of the
instantaneous effects of a proposal are governed by the rules.]

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994
Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998
Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007
Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008
Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008
Amended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008
Amended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(16) by cleaning (comex), 12 February 2009
Amended(17) by Proposal 6089 (Goethe), 22 February 2009
Amended(18) by Proposal 6090 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009
Amended(19) by Proposal 6113 (Goethe), 1 March 2009
Amended(20) by Proposal 6222 (coppro), 27 April 2009
Amended(21) by Proposal 6398 (C-walker; disi.), 17 July 2009
Amended(22) by Proposal 6414 (C-walker), 8 August 2009
Amended(23) by Proposal 6469 (coppro; disi.), 15 September 2009
Amended(24) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(25) by Proposal 6625 (Murphy), 20 February 2010
Amended(26) by Proposal 6656 (coppro), 1 March 2010
Amended(27) by Proposal 6721 (coppro; disi), 21 May 2010
Amended(28) by Proposal 6732 (comex), 13 June 2010
Amended(29) by Proposal 6823 (Murphy, omd), 10 September 2010
Amended(30) by Proposal 6968 (Murphy, scshunt, Wooble), 20 March 2011
Amended(31) by Proposal 7013 (omd), 23 April 2011
Amended(32) by Proposal 7081 (Murphy), 4 July 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011
Amended(34) by Proposal 7086 (G., omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(35) by Proposal 7246 (omd), 10 June 2012

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

Rule 1607/42 (Power=3)
Distribution

      The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for
      receiving and distributing proposals.

      Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision.
      For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the
      adoption index is initially the adoption index of the proposal,
      or 1.0 if the proposal does not have one, and the text of the
      proposal is an essential parameter.  Initiating such a decision
      is known as distribution, and removes the proposal from the
      Proposal Pool.

      The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal
      Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL NOT distribute proposals
      which are not pending.

      In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir
      weekly duties, distribute all pending proposals.

      Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the
      Promotor.

      If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be
      IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN
      distribute that Proposal Without 3 Objections.

      The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the
      Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes.  This
      portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's
      report is self-ratifying.

[CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a
proposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the
submitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted
proposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of
the proposal.]

[CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose
text consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating
matter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted
proposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal
distribution of either of the submitted proposals.]

[CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute
a proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in
the proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited)
distribution of a new proposal.]

[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new
proposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a
proposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning
to the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential
differences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the
proposal on which it is based.]

[CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally
creates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is
seriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new
proposal has no author.]

[CFJ 2733 (called 14 November 2009): This rule defines a separate
method of distribution from the one defined in Rule 107.]

History:
Created by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996
Amended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996
Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999
Amended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000
Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000
Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008
Amended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008
Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008
Amended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(20) by Proposal 6313 (Goethe), 26 May 2009
Amended(21) by Proposal 6341 (G.), 11 June 2009
Amended(22) by Proposal 6394 (Goethe), 10 July 2009
Amended(23) by Proposal 6395 (coppro), 17 July 2009
Amended(24) by Proposal 6406 (C-walker), 7 August 2009
Amended(25) by Proposal 6500 (coppro; disi.), 26 September 2009
Amended(26) by Proposal 6531 (Walker), 23 October 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6541 (Murphy), 4 November 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6550 (Tiger; disi.), 13 November 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6793 (Wooble), 27 August 2010
Amended(30) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(31) by Proposal 7033 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(32) by Proposal 7069 (Walker), 16 June 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011
Amended(34) by Proposal 7226 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(35) by Proposal 7239 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(36) by Proposal 7461 (Walker), 17 June 2013
Amended(37) by Proposal 7569 (omd, scshunt), 24 August 2013
Amended(38) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013
Amended(39) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(40) by Proposal 7618 (omd), 24 January 2014
Amended(41) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(42) by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014

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

Rule 1950/30 (Power=3)
Decisions with Adoption Indices

      Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran
      decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default)
      or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.

      Adoption index is secured with a power threshold of 2.

      An Agoran decision with an adoption index has the following
      essential parameters:

      a) Its adoption index.
      b) Its author (and co-authors, if any).

      For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available
      options are FOR and AGAINST.

[CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of
"AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former
private usage with the latter meaning.]

History:
Created by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000
Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002
Amended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002
Amended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002
Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003
Amended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004
Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004
Amended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005
Amended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005
Amended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008
Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008
Amended(21) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Retitled and amended(22) by Proposal 7013 (omd), 23 April 2011
Amended(23) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011
Amended(24) by Proposal 7216 (omd), 4 May 2012
Amended(25) by Proposal 7239 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(26) by Proposal 7274 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Amended(27) by Proposal 7296 (scshunt), 9 September 2012
Amended(28) by Proposal 7416 (omd), 12 May 2013
Amended(29) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Amended(30) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014

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

Rule 2137/2 (Power=1)
The Assessor

      The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for
      collecting votes and keeping track of related properties.

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

History:
Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008
Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009

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

Rule 2431/1 (Power=1)
Proposal Competitions

      Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, initiate a Proposal
      Competition with a specified Objective. Only one Competition may
      be in progress at a time. The Objective should be a
      specification of effects of a proposal, and SHOULD NOT depend on
      factors that could not be determined from the text of a
      proposal.

      During the Agoran Week following the initiation of a Proposal
      Competition, any player CAN specify that a Proposal e submits is
      a Competition Proposal for that Competition.  Players are
      ENCOURAGED to describe how their Competition Proposals fulfill
      the Objective.

      The Promotor SHALL distribute all Competition Proposals for a
      given Competition in the same message. The Assessor SHALL
      resolve all the Agoran Decisions to adopt the Competition
      Proposals for a given Competition in the same message.

      Once all Agoran decisions to adopt Competition Proposals for a
      given Competition have been resolved, the Competition ends.

History:
Created by Proposal 7667 (scshunt), 3 June 2014
Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 7705 (omd), 3 November 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7705 (omd), 3 November 2014

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

Rule 1698/4 (Power=3)
Agora Is A Nomic

      Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable
      combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule
      changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted
      within a four-week period.

      If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause
      Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to
      exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the gamestate
      would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to
      cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the
      contrary notwithstanding.

History:
Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997
Retitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 7075 (scshunt), 16 June 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7088 (omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(4) by Proposal 7628 (ais523), 7 April 2014

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

Rule 2444/0 (Power=1)
Silver Quill

      The Silver Quill is a biannual award designed to honor the
      authors of proposals of outstanding merit and influence on the
      game.

      The Marker Dates are July 14, two weeks after Agora's Birthday
      (to avoid the Holiday), and December 29, the day of Agora's
      Half-birthday, of each year, except for dates preceding the
      enactment of this Rule.  After midnight on a given Marker Date,
      the Herald CAN once initiate a Silver Quill Ceremony for that
      Date by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion; e is
      ENCOURAGED to initiate it on that exact Date if possible.

      After a Silver Quill Ceremony has been initiated, players are
      ENCOURAGED to discuss which eligible proposals best satisfy the
      aforementioned criteria.  To be eligible, a proposal must have
      been adopted at least 2 months, but no more than 14 months,
      before the Marker Date, and must not have previously won a
      Silver Quill Ceremony.  Proposals submitted by new players
      SHOULD be given somewhat higher weight, but the primary
      reference should be the proposals themselves and their effect on
      the game since adoption.

      Once four days have passed since initiation, the Herald CAN once
      initiate the Agoran decision to determine the winner, and SHALL
      do so in a timely fashion.  For this decision, the valid options
      are all eligible proposals and the vote collector is the Herald.

      Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome received at
      least three votes (and is not FAILED QUORUM), that proposal wins
      the Ceremony, and the Herald is authorized to award its author
      the Patent Title of "Silver Quill YYYY/MM", substituting the
      Marker Date; otherwise, there is no winner.  This ends the
      Ceremony.

History:
Created by Proposal 7722 (omd), 11 November 2014

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

======================================================================
Adjudication
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 991/15 (Power=2)
Calls for Judgement

      Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement
      (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a
      statement to be inquired into.  E may optionally bar one person
      from the case.

      At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), or has exactly
      one judgement.

      The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of
      justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest
      of Agora.

      When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any
      player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a
      week.  The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all
      players except the initiator and the person barred (if any).
      The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all
      interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge.

[CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously
referenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if
the number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those
involved accept it as unambiguous at the time.]

[CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so
it is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993
Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994
Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994
Infected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001
Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Retitled and amended(13) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014
Amended(14) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(15) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 591/41 (Power=1.7)
Delivering Judgements

      When a CFJ becomes open and is assigned to a judge, that judge
      SHALL assign a valid judgement to the case within a week of
      assignment, by announcement.  If e does not, the Arbitor CAN
      remove em from being the judge of that case by announcement.

      The valid judgements, based on the facts of the case at the time
      the CFJ was initiated, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS.  DISMISS is
      appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable,
      irrelevant to the game, if insufficient information exists to
      make a judgement with reasonable effort, or the statement is
      otherwise not able to be answered TRUE or FALSE.

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

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

[CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement
can be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public
knowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine
it.]

[CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement
logically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called
CFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this
as a situation of insufficient information being available.]

[CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge
to hunt down or request the information that would be required to
render a substantive judgement.]

[CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around
the interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not
provide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled
to treat this as a situation of insufficient information being
available.]

[CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a
particular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player
holds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that
office.]

[CFJ 2281 (called 19 November 2008): For the purposes of determining
the validity of an inquiry case, the term "statement" should be
interpreted loosely.]

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993
Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial
Infected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial
Amended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997,
  substantial
Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997
Amended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000
Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(31) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(32) by Proposal 6931 (omd), 2 January 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7022 (Walker, Murphy, omd), 5 May 2011
Amended(34) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(35) by Proposal 7078 (omd), 16 June 2011
Amended(36) by Proposal 7266 (omd), 25 July 2012
Amended(37) by Proposal 7293 (Murphy), 9 September 2012
Amended(38) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013
Retitled and amended(39) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014
Amended(40) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(41) by Proposal 7694 (omd), 23 October 2014

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

Rule 911/50 (Power=1.7)
Motions and Moots

      If a CFJ (1) has a judgement that has been in effect for less
      than seven days and not been appealed, and (2) has not had a
      Motion to Reconsider filed for it at any time while it has been
      assigned to its current judge, then any Player CAN file a Motion
      to Reconsider the case with 2 Support, or by announcement if e
      is that case's judge.  When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed,
      the case is rendered open again.

      A judgement assigned to any CFJ within the past two weeks CAN be
      entered into Moot by any Player with 2 support, unless that
      judgement has already been entered into Moot.

      Entering a Judgement into Moot is considered to be the
      publication of notice of intent by the Arbitor to resolve the
      Moot with Notice.  The Arbitor SHALL follow through in resolving
      the Moot.

      During a Moot, any player CAN publish or retract eir Brief
      concerning the judgement, clearly recommending a valid
      judgement.  The Arbitor resolves the Moot by assigning a valid
      judgement to the CFJ from among the judgements that received the
      most unretracted recommendations, if any; otherwise the Arbitor
      SHALL assign a valid judgement of eir choice.

[CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a
judgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.]

[CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form "I
call for the appeal of <judgement>" has the effect of initiating the
Agoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.]

History:
Created by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993
Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993
Amended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994
Amended by Rule 750, May 4 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996
Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996
Amended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic
  (unattributed)
Amended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial
Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002
Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004
Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008
Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008
Amended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008
Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008
Amended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(26) by Proposal 6211 (comex), 27 April 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6229 (Murphy), 4 May 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6327 (Murphy), 29 May 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6334 (Goethe, ais523), 29 May 2009
Amended(30) by Proposal 6334 (Goethe, ais523), 29 May 2009
Amended(31) by Proposal 6376 (Murphy), 23 June 2009
Amended(32) by Proposal 6510 (Murphy), 3 October 2009
Amended(33) by Proposal 6542 (Murphy), 7 November 2009
Amended(34) twice by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(35) by Proposal 6605 (Murphy), 19 January 2010
Amended(36) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010
Amended(37) by Proposal 6705 (comex), 25 April 2010
Amended(38) by Proposal 6726 (coppro), 22 May 2010
Amended(39) by Proposal 6811 (Murphy), 4 September 2010
Amended(40) by Proposal 6969 (Murphy), 20 March 2011
Amended(41) by Proposal 7038 (scshunt), 16 May 2011
Amended(42) by Proposal 7042 (Murphy; disi.), 16 May 2011
Amended(43) by Proposal 7049 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(44) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(45) by Proposal 7072 (woggle), 16 June 2011
Amended(46) by Proposal 7078 (omd), 16 June 2011
Amended(47) by Proposal 7152 (Murphy), 25 January 2012
Retitled and amended(48) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014
Amended(49) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(50) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2175/9 (Power=1)
Judicial Retraction and Excess

      A new case is a judicial case that has not had any judge
      assigned to it.  The initiator of a new case CAN retract it by
      announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case.

      An excess case is a new case whose initiator previously
      initiated five or more cases during the same week as that case.
      A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case.  The Arbitor CAN
      refuse an excess case by announcement, thus causing it to cease
      to be a judicial case.  When e does so, e fulfills any
      obligations with regards to that case.

History:
Created by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 6445 (coppro; disi.), 27 August 2009
Amended(6) by Proposal 6944 (omd; disi.), 16 January 2011
Amended(7) by Proposal 7623 (G.), 23 February 2014
Amended(8) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014
Amended(9) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2426/4 (Power=1)
Cards

      The Referee is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping
      track of wrongdoing.

      The Referee CAN issue a Card to a specified player by
      announcement.  When issuing each Card, e SHALL cite a unique
      violation of the rules e perceives to have occurred within the
      last 14 days, and CANNOT issue more than three Cards per week,
      or one per week to a single player.  The Arbitor CAN issue Black
      Cards to the Referee solely for alleged violations of the former
      requirement.

      The following Cards exist:

      - Green Card, intended for offenses which the Referee does not
        believe warrant effective punishment.  When a Green Card is
        issued, the target player is ENCOURAGED to travel to the
        United States.

      - Red Card, intended for more severe offenses.  The effects of a
        Red Card are described elsewhere.

      - Black Card, naming an office held by the player, intended for
        severe abuses of power (the perceived rule violation must
        involve use or non-use of that office's powers).  Within seven
        days after a Black Card is issued, any player CAN become the
        holder of the target office with two support;  the issuer of
        that Card CANNOT initiate or support this.

      The Referee SHALL issue at least one Card per week, unless no
      violations occurred that week.

History:
Created by Proposal 7639 (omd), 1 May 2014
Amended(1) by Proposal 7696 (omd), 23 October 2014
Amended(2) by Proposal 7708 (Murphy), 3 November 2014
Amended(3) by Proposal 7720 (omd), 9 November 2014
Amended(4) by Proposal 7729 (Tiger), 24 November 2014

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

Rule 2427/0 (Power=3)
Red Cards

      After a Red Card has been issued to a player, e SHOULD 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; other effects are described
      elsewhere.  Until e does so or 30 days have passed, e CANNOT
      cast votes other than PRESENT, rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding.

History:
Created by Proposal 7639 (omd), 1 May 2014

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

======================================================================
Patent Titles and Degrees
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 649/36 (Power=1.5)
Patent Titles

      A Patent Title is a legal title given to a person in recognition
      of the person's distinction.  The Herald is an office; its
      holder is responsible for tracking Patent Titles in eir monthly
      report.

      Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured.  A person
      permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do
      so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do
      so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case
      contesting the validity of those conditions.

      The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title not already
      defined by any Rule or held by any entity to a specified player
      With 2 Agoran Consent.

[CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by
the rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the
same spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same
patent title.]

[CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is
borne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent
title is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.]

[CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a
person at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a
patent title simultaneously.]

[CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent
title X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special
meaning, it is correct to say that that person "is an X".]

History:
Created by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996
Amended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic
  (unattributed)
Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial
Amended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999
Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999
Amended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000
Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001
Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003
Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005
Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007
Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007
Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007
Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007
Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February
  2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009
Amended(29) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009
Amended(30) by cleaning (Wooble), 13 April 2009
Amended(31) by Proposal 6424 (Murphy), 16 August 2009
Amended(32) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(33) by Proposal 7315 (omd), 16 October 2012
Amended(34) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013
Amended(35) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013
Amended(36) by Proposal 7621 (G.), 23 February 2014

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

Rule 1367/19 (Power=3)
Degrees

      Certain patent titles are known as degrees.  The degrees are

      - Associate of Nomic                 (A.N.)
      - Bachelor of Nomic                  (B.N.)
      - Master of Nomic                    (M.N.)
      - Doctor of Nomic History            (D.N.Hist.)
      - Doctor of Nomic Science            (D.N.Sci.)
      - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy         (D.N.Phil.)

      Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with
      degrees listed later being ranked higher.  A specific degree
      CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once.

      A specified degree CAN be awarded with 2 Agoran Consent, and
      SHOULD only be awarded for the publication of an original
      thesis of scholarly worth (including responses to peer-review),
      published with explicit intent to qualify for a degree.  The
      Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review process and the
      awarding of degrees.

History:
Created by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998
Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000
Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001
Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November
  2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008
Power changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November
  2008
Amended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18
  November 2008
Amended(13) by Proposal 6257 (coppro), 11 May 2009
Amended(14) by Proposal 6624 (Murphy), 20 February 2010
Amended(15) by Proposal 6671 (Yally; disi.), 22 March 2010
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 6717 (coppro), 4 May 2010
Amended(16) by SLR ratification (Proposal 6806; coppro), 27 August
  2010
Amended(17) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013
Amended(18) by Proposal 7591 (scshunt), 14 September 2013
Amended(19) by Proposal 7620 (omd), 24 January 2014

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

Rule 2231/5 (Power=3)
Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic

      Heroic titles are Agora's premier patent titles of distinction,
      and CAN be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a
      proposal of power 3 or greater, which SHOULD explain why those
      persons are qualified.  Bearers of heroic titles (Heroes)
      constitute the Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic.

      The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are:

      Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to
      any person obviously and directly responsible for the existence
      of Agora and/or Nomic in general.  As this title is the highest
      honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be
      treated right good forever.

      Hero 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.

History:
Created by Proposal 6016 (OscarMeyr), 18 December 2008
Amended(1) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 6626 (Murphy), 20 February 2010
Amended(3) by Proposal 6626 (Murphy), 20 February 2010
Amended(4) by Proposal 7621 (G.), 23 February 2014
Amended(5) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014

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

Rule 2415/0 (Power=1.5)
Badges

      A Badge is any patent title with the word 'badge' as part of
      its name.  A badge SHOULD be used to award multiple persons for
      participating in specific event of note within Agora.  Any
      player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist to three or
      more persons simultaneously, with Agoran Consent.  The Herald
      CAN award an existing badge to persons Without Objection.

History:
Created by Proposal 7516 (G.), 19 July 2013

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

======================================================================
Trophies
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1727/18 (Power=1)
Happy Birthday

      WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world's only MUD-based nomic, Nomic
      World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed
      nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit;

      And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an
      Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial
      Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets
      of Nomic World and other nomics,

      And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of
      Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for
      discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30,
      1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER
      Michael Norrish, which read, in part,

          "I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no
          precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we
          may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are
          invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be
          published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest
          convenience."

      And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic,
      known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played
      on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of
      Agora,

      And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest,
      and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard
      work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of
      Agoraphobes,

      And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora's
      founding,

      BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora's Birthday is defined to be
      the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year.

History:
Created by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997
Amended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999
Amended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Amended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999
Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000
Amended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001
Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001
Amended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001
Amended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002
Amended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002
Amended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003
Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005
Amended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005
Amended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013

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

Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
Town Fountain

                      /\   /\
                      / \ / \
                         T
                        his
                      Power-4
               Rule (the first ever)
                was placed to honor
           The Agoran  Spirit Of The Game
           by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root
           and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
           on our works, ye Marvy, but do
      always Dance a Powerful Dance.  Hail Eris!

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

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

History:
Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002

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

======================================================================
Garbage Bin
      CFJ annotations that do not currently apply to any specific
      rules, but are likely to do so in the future, at which point
      they can be reattached.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Contracts / Binding Agreements

[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding
is thereby not a contract.]

[CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is
thereby a contract, even if it doesn't impose any obligations.]

[CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement's text can disclaim
contract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly
describing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.]

[CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a
prerequisite for becoming party to a contract.]

[CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e
agrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying
who this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate
who can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to
the contract by announcement.]

[CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an
otherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to
be bound by the contract.]

[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if
the courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person's
contract-related rights (in Rule 101) are not being infringed.  This
includes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the
rules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.]

[CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an
agreement categorically cannot violate it.]

[CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not
implicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.]

[CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive
operations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of
the parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.]

[CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have
retroactive effect.]

[CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract
cannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining
justiciability of the contract.]

[CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able
to define terms used by the rules.]

[CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create
new ways of winning the game.]

[CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a
party in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by
that party that purports to cancel that authorisation.]

[CFJ 1921 (called 2 April 2008): Agreements with informal phrasing can
be considered contracts, but only when made in a medium where lying is
against the Rules (i.e. a public forum).]

[CFJ 2302 (called 7 December 2008): The scope of the text of a
contract is limited compared to that of a rule; in particular, a
contract cannot cause a paradox by setting undecidable conditions on
joining it.]

[CFJ 2101 (called 20 July 2008): Consent to join a binding agreement
implies consent to join later agreements created through currently
existing rule-defined processes.]

[CFJ 2220 (called 11 October 2008): Consent to join a binding
agreement may be an effect of another action, such as joining a
foreign nomic, as long as the action is triggered by free will and the
actor is reasonably aware of the effect.]

[CFJ 2246 (called 30 October 2008): Joining a contract does not imply
consent to be acted on behalf of simply because the contract might be
amended in the future to allow it.]

[CFJ 2264 (called 11 November 2008): The right to refuse to become
party to an agreement does not apply to amendments to existing
agreements.]

[CFJ 2410 (called 11 March 2009): Consent to join a binding agreement
may be given privately.]

[CFJ 2761 (called 7 February 2010): The termination of a contract
through processes it explicitly envisions (including a rule-defined
mechanism, if the contract is intended to be governed under Agoran
law) is akin to a natural death, and does not generally constitute a
restriction of its rights as a person.]

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

Truthfulness

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

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

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

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

[CFJ 2399 (called 4 March 2009): Even if a type of behavior is likely
to cause false statements to be accidentally published, a person does
not violate Rule 2215 by engaging in it if there is no specific
statement e believes is false.]

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

Miscellaneous

[CFJ 2276a (called 20 November 2008): When a rule allows, as an
action, a quantity to be increased which is defined elsewhere as a
fixed value, and that action is taken, the rule thereby redefines the
quantity as one more than it would otherwise be.]

[CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that "no
interpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person's defined
rights" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of
Agoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person's
defined rights are not being limited.]

[CFJ 2361 (called 26 January 2009): The withholding of a reward for
doing something may or may not constitute a penalty for not doing it,
depending on the circumstances.]

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

END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET