======================================================================

This document is out of date!
An updated copy can be found with the new Rulekeepor at:
https://www.eecs.berkeley.edu/~charles/agora/current_flr.txt

======================================================================

THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

Last updated: 5 November 2012

Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 7317
Last change to this ruleset: by Rule 2380

Last ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 24 June 2012
Last ratification date: 7 July 2012

Highest Rule ID number ever assigned: 2384

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

Statistics

Current total number of rules: 119

Power distribution:
       1 with Power=4
       1 with Power=3.2
       1 with Power=3.1
      40 with Power=3
      32 with Power=2
       9 with Power=1.7
       3 with Power=1.5
       1 with Power=1.1
      31 with Power=1

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

Index of Rules

      * The Game of Agora
      Rule 2105: The Map of Agora
      Rule  101: The Rights of Agorans
      Rule 2125: Regulation Regulations
      Rule 1586: Definition and Continuity of Entities
      Rule 1688: Power
      Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability
      Rule  104: First Speaker
      Rule 2326: The President
      Rule 2348: Presidential Power
      Rule  103: The Speaker
      Rule 2339: Intention
      Rule 2359: The Power Of Agora
      Rule 2351: Agora, Adult
      Rule 2357: Wisdom of the Elders
      Rule 2358: Win by Paradox

      * 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 2340: Notability
      Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor
      Rule 2327: Read the Ruleset Week

      * Players
      Rule  869: How to Join and Leave Agora
      Rule 2170: Who Am I?
      Rule 2150: Personhood
      Rule 2328: Public Agreements
      Rule 2139: The Registrar
      Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus
      Rule 2130: Activity

      * Foreign Relations
      Rule 2368: Nomic Definitions
      Rule 2369: Foreign Relations
      Rule 2370: The Ambassador-At-Large
      Rule 2371: Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics
      Rule 2372: Ambassadors Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary

      * Economy
      Rule 2166: Assets
      Rule 2343: Victory Conditions
      Rule 2337: Promises
      Rule 2338: Cashing Promises
      Rule 2356: Naughtiness
      Rule 2354: Costs
      Rule 2360: Golems
      Rule 2361: Slave Golems
      Rule 2362: Rubles
      Rule 2363: Poll Fees
      Rule 2364: Ballot Fees
      Rule 2376: Props

      * Definitions
      Rule  754: Definition Definitions
      Rule 2152: Mother, May I?
      Rule 1023: Common Definitions
      Rule 2347: Speed
      Rule 1769: Holidays
      Rule 2329: Festival Days
      Rule 2162: Switches
      Rule  478: Fora
      Rule 1728: Dependent Actions
      Rule 2288: Induction
      Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction
      Rule 2333: Contests
      Rule 2334: Timers

      * 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 2276: Assumption of Vacant Offices
      Rule 2138: The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel
      Rule 1551: Ratification
      Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection
      Rule 2201: Self-Ratification

      * Agoran Decisions
      Rule  693: Agoran Decisions
      Rule  107: Initiating Agoran Decisions
      Rule  683: Voting on Agoran Decisions
      Rule 2127: Conditional Votes
      Rule 2280: Implicit 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  106: Adopting Proposals
      Rule 1607: Distribution
      Rule 2373: Voting Chambers
      Rule 2374: Democratization
      Rule 2375: Plutocratic Chamber
      Rule 2377: Aerocratic Chamber
      Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices
      Rule 2137: The Assessor
      Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic
      Rule 2366: Veto and Rubberstamp
      Rule 2381: Win by Clout

      * Adjudication
      Rule  991: Judicial Cases Generally
      Rule 2158: Judges
      Rule  591: Inquiry Cases
      Rule 1504: Criminal Cases
      Rule 2277: Appeals of Criminal Cases
      Rule 2205: Judicial Arguments and Evidence
      Rule 2157: Judicial Panels
      Rule 2341: Judgements by Judicial Panels
      Rule 2318: Motions to Reconsider
      Rule  911: Appeal Cases
      Rule 2342: Judicial Appeals Panels
      Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess
      Rule 1868: Judge Assignment Generally
      Rule 1871: The Standing Court
      Rule 2378: The Justiciar
      Rule 2204: Linked Assignments
      Rule 2164: Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer
      Rule 2212: Judicial Declarations
      Rule 2367: Messy Statements

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

      * Trophies
      Rule 1727: Happy Birthday
      Rule 2355: For It Was Not To B
      Rule 2029: Town Fountain
      Rule 2380: Richard Potato Boat

      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.  History entries are required by Rule 1681; an ellipsis
(...) indicates that the history is incomplete.

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

      Text of rule.

History:
List of changes to the rule.

Annotations in square brackets are unofficial and have no legal force.
They are added at the Rulekeepor's discrection, except for
annotations starting with a CFJ number, which are mandated by Rule
2340.  A judicial case is Notable if and only if it has such an
annotation in this document.

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

======================================================================
The Game of Agora
      A category concerning this nomic generally, constitutional
      matters, and relationships between the most fundamental nomic
      entities.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2105/5 (Power=1)
The Map of Agora

                               ____  _        /|
                    DARWIN ->  \_  |/ |      / \
                              __/    /      |  |
            <- DSV          /      /        |  \
                        _   \      \_       |   \
                  MORNINGTON CRESCENT ->    /    |  <- GOETHE BARRIER
                 _ _/       |         \_/\_/     \     REEF
                / \\ <- SHARK BAY      |         |
               /            |          |          \ <- TOWNSVILLE
            ___/            |          |           \_
         __/                |          |  .___o  )   |
        /                   |          | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR'S MIRE
       /           O <- SHERLOCK NESS  |             |/\
      |                     |          |               |_
      |                     |          |  EMERALD ->     \
      \                     |__________=_____,             \ BRISBANE
       /                    |                |             | <-'
       \      O <- LT. ANNE MOORE            |        __  _\
        \                   |                |_______/  \/ |  LORD
         |                __/\      <- TARACOOLA          /   HOWE ->
         \  PERTH      __/    \_             /           /
          | <-'  _  __/         |   /| IVANHOE ->       | <-.
          /    _/ \/             \ / /       |         /  WOLLONGONG
         |_   /     <- ESPERANTO  v /__     |_        / <- CANBERRA
           \_/                         \    | \_    _|
                  __   __              |    |   \__/           \_
                 __ \ / __              \___=_  ___|            \_
                /  \ | /  \     MANUBOURNE -> \/      NEW C.LAND \}
                    \|/                                           \)
               _,.---v---._                 /\__                   )`-']
      /\__/\  /            \                |   |  COOK SCSTRAIGHT(    !
      \_  _/ /              \                |  /      MICHAELTON->)  /
        \ \_|           @ __|                \_/ <- HOBART    |^\  (_/
         \                \_                                 (  |
          \     ,__/       /                                 /  *
        ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~                  BREE_523->/~   /
                                            MURPHENDELL--> #   /
                                                         /   |BOBCHURCH
                                             PAVRITTON->/  _|
                                                       {__/
                                                     /  @
                                    WOOBLEING HEIGHTS

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005
Amended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005
Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 6581 (G.), 28 November 2009
Amended(5) by Proposal 7210 (scshunt), 4 May 2012


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

Rule 101/14 (Power=3)
The Rights of Agorans

      WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
      game but as a society, and WHEREAS a society, to function, must
      balance its Rules with the natural rights of its participants,
      BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that no interpretation of Agoran law or
      binding agreement may substantially limit or remove a person's
      rights as defined by this Rule, except through the explicit and
      legal amendment of this Rule.  For the purposes of this Rule, a
      "person" is defined strictly as any unique biological organism
      that is generally capable of initiating the communication of
      independent thought, and a "player" is any such organism that is
      also a player of Agora.

      This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow or
      mandate restrictions of the rights contained herein.

         i. Every person has the right, though not necessarily the
            ability, to perform actions that are not prohibited or
            regulated by the Rules, with the sole exception of
            changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules
            explicitly or implicitly permit it.

        ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to
            resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
            expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.
            Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration
            of any judicial determination that e should be punished.

       iii. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
            a binding agreement.  The absence of a person's explicit,
            willful consent shall be considered a refusal.

        iv. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
            an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, or a Rule
            Change, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to
            review.  For the purpose of protecting this right, a rule
            change which would otherwise take effect without its
            substance being subject to general player review through a
            reasonably public process is wholly prevented from taking
            effect.

         v. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.

        vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
            once for any single action or inaction.  However, this
            right is not violated by replacing part or all of a
            penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when
            the rules governing penalties are amended.

       vii. Every player has the right to deregister; e may continue
            to accrue obligations and penalties after deregistration
            but, if e wishes to ignore the game, such penalties shall
            not unduly harass em.

      Please treat Agora right good forever.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing
applies only to those who have the rule-defined status of "player",
not to those who play the game in the broader sense without having
that official status.]

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

[CFJ 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 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.]

[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 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.]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2125/7 (Power=3)
Regulation Regulations

      A regulated action is an action satisfying any of the following:

      a) It is IMPOSSIBLE.

      b) It is ILLEGAL.

      c) The rules explicitly state that it CAN be performed while
         certain conditions are satisfied.  Such an action CANNOT be
         performed except as allowed by the rules.  In particular, if
         the action in question is publishing a type of document, then
         a public message is not that type of document (even if it is
         labeled as such) except as allowed by the rules.

      d) The rules explicitly state that it MAY be performed while
         certain conditions are satisfied.  Except as allowed by the
         rules, performing such an action is the Class-N Crime of
         Restricted Behavior, where N is the maximum power of the
         rules explicitly allowing it (rounded up as needed to become
         a valid Class of Crime).

      e) It would, as part of its effect, modify information for which
         some player is required to be a recordkeepor.  Such an action
         CANNOT modify that information except as allowed by the
         rules.

      f) A judicial finding has determined that it is regulated, and
         has not been superseded by subsequent legislation.

      A person SHOULD NOT violate a rule.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1586/8 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities

      If multiple rules attempt to define an entity with the same
      name, then they refer to the same entity.  A rule-defined
      entity's name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another
      rule-defined entity's name.

      A rule referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that
      had that name when the rule first came to include that
      reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.

      If the rules are amended such that they no longer define an
      entity, then that entity and its attributes cease to exist.

      If the rules are amended such that they define an entity both
      before and after the amendment, but with different attributes,
      then that entity and its attributes continue to exist to
      whatever extent is possible under the new definitions.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include
pending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules
even if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger
them under the new rules.]

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


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996
Amended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial
Amended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000
Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007
Amended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008
Amended(6) by cleaning (comex), 26 January 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6650 (coppro), 10 March 2010
Amended(8) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011


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

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: (hide)(show)
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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995


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

Rule 2326/3 (Power=2)
The President

      The President is a second-class person.  Causing the President
      to act is secured.

      Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the President CANNOT be
      deregistered.

      A first-class Player CAN cause the President to take actions
      Without Objection, or with Agoran Consent.

      Should the President incur obligations under the Rules, then the
      Speaker SHALL act to satisfy these obligations.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7029 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7030 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7233 (441344), 10 June 2012


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

Rule 2348/0 (Power=1)
Presidential Power

      The President's power is equal to the power of this Rule.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7067 (G.), 16 June 2011


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

Rule 103/10 (Power=2)
The Speaker

      The Speaker is an imposed office and a figurehead of Agora. The
      Speaker is a person who has proven themselves to be worthy of
      the title, and for a time can direct Agoran government affairs.

      Each player has a Speaker Account.  The office of Speaker is
      held by the single player whose Speaker Account owns more rubles
      than any other, or is vacant if there is no such player.  At the
      start of each week, each Speaker Account which owns at least as
      many rubles as any other loses one ruble (if it has any).

      The Speaker CAN, by announcement, cause the President to take
      actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE, except for
      deregistration.  Causing the President to perform ILLEGAL
      actions in this manner is the Class-6 crime of Misleading the
      Leader.

[Cross-references (10 July 2009): the Speaker's duties are:
  * figurehead (Rule 103)
  * bestow favors (Rule 103)]

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2339/1 (Power=1)
Intention

      Agora Nomic is intended to be a person.

      When Agora Nomic is a person, any player CAN cause em to take
      actions without objection or with Agoran Consent.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7021 (Walker), 5 May 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7112 (Walker), 20 August 2011


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

Rule 2359/0 (Power=1)
The Power Of Agora

      If Agora is a person, Agora has power equal to the power of this
      rule.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7160 (441344), 5 February 2012


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

Rule 2351/1 (Power=3)
Agora, Adult

      Agora can make its own decisions. If, at any time, Agora wishes
      to counteract a decision, then that decision, rules to the
      contrary notwithstanding, has no effect. The game of Agora, but
      not any other player of it, can make arbitrary changes to the
      gamestate.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7095 (Yally), 23 July 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7128 (scshunt), 6 November 2011


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

Rule 2357/4 (Power=2)
Wisdom of the Elders

      An Elder is a first-class player who has been registered
      continuously for at least 32 days, and also registered for at
      least 128 days total (not necessarily contiguously).

      An Elder can declare a Gerontocracy with 3 Elder support, unless
      a Gerontocracy was declared within the preceding 28 days.

      Gerontocratic is a Voting Chamber. The eligible voters on a
      Gerontocratic Decision are those entities that were Elders at
      the start of its voting period.

      During the 32 days after a Gerontocracy is declared:
        * Any Elder CAN flip any non-Elder to supine by announcement;
        * Any Elder CAN flip any office held by a non-Elder to Assumed
          by announcement;
        * Non-Elders CANNOT Assume offices, even if other rules say
          they can;
        * Any Elder, with 4 Elder Support, CAN set the Adoption Index
          of any Agoran Decision with an Adoption Index to 8.
        * If 5 or more Elders are Objectors to an intent, Agora is not
          Satisfied with that intent, rules to the contrary
          notwithstanding. Any Elder is eligible to object to any
          intent, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
        * Any Elder CAN, with 2 Elder Support, set the Chamber of an
          entity to Gerontocratic

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7134 (ais523), 6 November 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7164 (Murphy, Arkady), 16 February 2012
Amended(2) by Proposal 7167 (441344), 16 February 2012
Amended(3) by Proposal 7218 (BuckyBot, Bucky), 10 June 2012
Amended(4) by Proposal 7303 (FKA441344), 27 September 2012


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

Rule 2358/1 (Power=1)
Win by Paradox

      A turtle is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of a
      rule-defined action (actually either occurring, performed, or
      attempted, but not arising from that case itself, and not
      occurring after the initiation of that case) which has the
      judgement UNDECIDABLE.

      When a turtle has continuously been a turtle for one week, its
      initiator satisfies the Victory Condition of Paradox.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7138 (omd), 19 November 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7271 (G.), 14 August 2012


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

======================================================================
Rules
      A category concerning the rules of the game, including the
      processes of changing the rules.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2141/6 (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.  In
      particular, a rule may define in-game entities and regulate
      their behaviour, make instantaneous changes to the state of
      in-game entities, prescribe or proscribe certain player
      behaviour, modify the rules or the application thereof, or do
      any of these things in a conditional manner.

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

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

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

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

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 217/6 (Power=3)
Interpreting the Rules

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

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995
Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996
Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007


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

Rule 1030/10 (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,

      - The Rule with the lower ID number 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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

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


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

Rule 105/5 (Power=3)
Rule Changes

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

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

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

      (c) amend the text of a rule.

      (d) retitle a rule.

      (e) change the power of a rule.

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

      Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that
      change to be void and without effect.  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.

      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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1681/18 (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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2340/3 (Power=1)
Notability

      Notability is a judicial case switch with values Incidental
      (default) and Notable, tracked by the Rulekeepor in eir monthly
      report. A player CAN, without two objections, flip the
      Notability of a specified case.

      The Rulekeepor SHALL annotate the FLR to draw attention to
      Notable cases, specifying the ID number of the case and
      including a brief description of the precedent it sets.

      The players involved in making a case Notable SHOULD suggest
      where the FLR should be so annotated.

      A player CAN, with two support, make a specified case Notable.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7022 (Walker, Murphy, omd), 5 May 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7064 (Murphy), 16 June 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7234 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(3) by Proposal 7281 (FKA41344), 23 August 2012


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

Rule 1051/18 (Power=1)
The Rulekeepor

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

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

[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor's duties are:
  * manage ID numbers of rules (Rule 2141)
  * assign title to rule (Rule 2141)
  * report ruleset in two formats (Rule 1051)
  * manage Logical Ruleset categories (Rule 1681)
  * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (Rule 1681)
  * maintain historical rule annotations (Rule 1681)]

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


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

======================================================================
Players
      A category concerning players, including the processes of
      becoming and ceasing to be players, and game-relevant aspects of
      players.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 869/33 (Power=2)
How to Join and Leave Agora

      Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered
      (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar.  A player is
      an entity whose citizenship is Registered.  Changes to
      citizenship are secured.

      The verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to
      have one's citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered),
      and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player
      (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Registered to
      Unregistered).  Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister"
      is used without an explicit direct object, the action is
      implicitly reflexive.

      A first-class 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 second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent.

      A non-person CANNOT be registered (or created in a Registered
      state), rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

      A player CAN deregister by announcement.  A person CANNOT
      register within thirty days after being deregistered, unless
      rules define the method of deregistration as passive.

      A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class
      person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement.

      Initiating a frivolous judicial case on the success or failure
      of a registration attempt is the Class-3 crime of Hazing.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2170/8 (Power=3)
Who Am I?

      Rules regarding persons pertain to those persons directly, not
      to rule-defined avatars or other entities representing those
      persons within Agora.

      A person SHALL NOT make a public statement intended to mislead
      others as to the identity of its publisher.

      A player SHALL NOT select a confusing nickname.

      A public message's (possibly implicit) claim as to the identity
      of its publisher is self-ratifying, provided that the claim is
      neither ambiguous nor self-contradictory, and no challenge of
      identity pertaining to the claimed publisher has been issued
      within one month before its publication.  Upon a judicial
      finding that the claimed publisher of one or more messages
      (hereafter the Sock Puppet) was not a person, if any of those
      claims have already self-ratified, then the judge SHALL as soon
      as possible publish a judicial declaration that the Sock Puppet
      was a person during one or more time periods, and SHOULD ensure
      that it corresponds to general belief prior to that finding.

      The Executor of a public message is the first-class person who
      sends it, or who most directly and immediately causes it to be
      sent.  (Upon a judicial finding that the Executor of a public
      message cannot otherwise be determined within reasonable effort,
      the judge SHALL as soon as possible publish a judicial
      declaration specifying the identity of that message's Executor.)
      The executor of an action performed by announcement is the
      executor of the announcement.

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

[CFJ 2300 (called 5 December 2008): The Executor of a public message
is not necessarily a person who took action at the time the message
was sent.]

[CFJ 2325 (called 5 January 2009): Only the selection of a nickname
for the purposes of Agora is relevant to this rule.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 5671 (Murphy, Pavrita), 12 August 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5716 (Murphy), 7 October 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5717 (Murphy), 7 October 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5741 (Murphy), 16 October 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 7178 (G.), 26 February 2012
Amended(8) by Proposal 7185 (441344), 26 February 2012


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

Rule 2150/6 (Power=3)
Personhood

      A person is an entity defined as such by rules with power of at
      least 2.  A person CAN generally be the subject of rights and
      obligations under the rules.

      Any biological organism that is generally capable of
      communicating by email in English (including via a translation
      service) is a person.

      A first-class person is a person of a biological nature.  All
      other persons are second-class.

      The basis of a first-class person is the singleton set
      consisting of that person.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to
communicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do
not know the organism's email address.]

[CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g.,
keyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption
against personhood and against one having spoken on one's own behalf.]

[CFJ 2398 (called 3 March 2009): Young children may or may not be
considered persons, depending on their communication skills.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5509 (root; disi.), 28 May 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5760 (comex), 16 October 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5790 (Murphy), 22 October 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008


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

Rule 2328/0 (Power=2)
Public Agreements

      An agreement between two or more players is a person if all of
      the following are true:

        a) It clearly indicates that it is intended to be a person.
        b) Its text has been published.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6976 (Murphy, MRW and Associates), 30 March 2011


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

Rule 2139/4 (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) The Activity of each player, and when each Inactive player
         became Inactive.
      d) For each former player for which the information is
         reasonably available, the dates on which e registered and
         deregistered.

      The portion of a public message purporting to be a Registrar's
      report that lists each player implies that no players other than
      those listed exist and is self-ratifying.

      The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches that
      would otherwise lack an officer to track them.

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

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

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

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

[Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar's duties are:
  * track citizenship (Rule 869)
  * report players' identity and contact details (Rule 2139)
  * report registration dates (Rule 2139)
  * issue Writ of FAGE (Rule 1789)
  * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (Rule 1789)
  * track player activity and report change dates (Rule 2130)
  * track forum publicity (Rule 478)
  * report fora (Rule 478)
  * change the publicity of a forum (Rule 478)]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1789/7 (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.

      As soon as possible after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the
      Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of
      Fugere Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player
      to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of
      deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports.

      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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2130/13 (Power=2)
Activity

      Activity is a player switch with values Active (default) and
      Inactive, tracked by the Registrar.  The Registrar's report
      includes the date on which each non-Active player's activity
      last changed.  Changes to Activity are Secured.

      A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement.  "To go on hold"
      is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active.

      A player CAN flip another player's activity to Inactive without
      objection.

      A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three
      months CAN be deregistered by any other player without
      objection.  This is a passive method of deregistration.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

======================================================================
Foreign Relations
      A category concerning interaction with other nomics.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2368/0 (Power=1)
Nomic Definitions

      A nomic is a system of rules that provides means for itself to
      be amended arbitrarily. Nomics can be games, micronations,
      simulations, and/or sovereign states.

      A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has
      the same name as this one.

      A protectorate is a foreign nomic which specifies in its ruleset
      that it is a Protectorate Of Agora and which allows Agora to
      make arbitrary amendments to it.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7256 (441344, ais523, BobTHJ, Murphy, Pavitra,
  Tiger, woggle, Yally, Zefram), 7 July 2012


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

Rule 2369/2 (Power=1)
Foreign Relations

      Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the
      Ambassador-At-Large, with values Unknown (default), Protected,
      Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned. Players
      SHOULD not violate the rules of Protected or Friendly nomics.

      When a non-Unknown foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, it's
      recognition becomes Protected.  When a foreign nomic ceases to
      be a Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. Any person
      CAN flip an Unknown Protectorate's Recognition to Protected by
      announcement.  A foreign nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or
      from Protected in any other way.

      The Ambassador-At-Large CAN, with Agoran Consent, flip a foreign
      nomic's Recognition to any value (subject to the above
      restriction).  E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon
      as possible.

      Any Ambassador Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary to a foreign
      nomic CAN by announcement flip its Recognition to any value
      (subject to the above restriction).  E SHALL inform that nomic
      of the change as soon as possible.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7256 (441344, ais523, BobTHJ, Murphy, Pavitra,
  Tiger, woggle, Yally, Zefram), 7 July 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7258 (441344), 7 July 2012
Amended(2) by Proposal 7273 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012


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

Rule 2370/0 (Power=1)
The Ambassador-At-Large

      The Ambassador-At-Large is an office; its holder is responsible
      for relations with foreign nomics.

      A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the
      ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassadors.
      It is ILLEGAL to use or attempt to use such powers or privileges
      except as allowed by the rules of Agora. The Ambassador-At-Large
      CAN and MAY, with Agoran Consent, authorize emself to use such
      powers or priviliges in a specified way, in a specified nomic,
      in a specified timeframe of length not exceeding two weeks. If a
      foreign nomic allows for Agora to take actions in it, the
      ambassador CAN and MAY, with Agoran consent, take a specified
      action or series of actions in it on behalf of Agora, provided
      that the nomic is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral.

      It is ILLEGAL to falsely claim, to any nomic, to be an
      ambassador of Agora. The Ambassador-At-Large SHALL inform any
      nomic that recieves such a claim of its falsehood as soon as
      possible.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7256 (441344, ais523, BobTHJ, Murphy, Pavitra,
  Tiger, woggle, Yally, Zefram), 7 July 2012


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

Rule 2371/0 (Power=2)
Personhood and Playerhood of Nomics

      Nomics are second-class persons. Rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, Nomics with a Recognition of Sanctioned or
      Hostile are not players, CANNOT be players, and are immediately
      deregistered if they are players.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7257 (441344), 7 July 2012


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

Rule 2372/0 (Power=1)
Ambassadors Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary

      The Ambassador-At-Large CAN, with 2 Agoran Consent, appoint a
      specified player as an Ambassador Extraordinary And
      Plenipotentiary to a specified foreign nomic for a specified
      timeframe not exceeding two weeks. An Ambassador Extraordinary
      And Plenipoteniary to a foreign nomic MAY use any powers or
      privileges that that nomic grants to ambassadors of Agora
      without restriction. If a foreign nomic allows for Agora to take
      actions in it, any Ambassador Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary
      to it CAN and MAY perform actions in it on behalf of Agora
      without restriction. When any Ambassador ceases to be a player,
      e ceases to be an Ambassador Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary.
      The Ambassador-At-Large CAN with 2 support, with Agoran Consent,
      or Without 3 Objections revoke the appointment of an Ambassador
      Extraordinary And Plenipotentiary. The Ambassador-At-Large CAN
      Without Objection extend the appointment of an Ambassador
      Extraordinary And Plentipotiary by a period not exceeding two
      weeks.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7258 (441344), 7 July 2012


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

======================================================================
Economy
      A category concerning asset-based gameplay.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2166/17 (Power=2)
Assets

      An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contest
      (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because
      its backing document defines its existence.

      Each asset has exactly one owner.  If an asset would otherwise
      lack an owner, it is owned by the Lost and Found Department.  If
      an asset's backing document restricts its ownership to a class
      of entities, then that asset CANNOT be gained by or transferred
      to an entity outside that class, and is transferred to the Lost
      and Found Department if it is owned by an entity outside that
      class.  If an asset is owned by the Lost and Found department
      any player CAN transfer or destroy it with 1.5 Agoran consent or
      without 2 objections.

      The Lost and Found department may own any asset, and have assets
      transferred to and from it, regardless of the asset's backing
      document or any Rule, Rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

      The recordkeepor of a class of assets is the entity (if any)
      defined as such by, and bound by, its backing document.  That
      entity's report includes a list of all instances of that class
      and their owners.  This portion of that entity's report is
      self-ratifying.

      An asset whose backing document is not a rule generally CAN be
      created by its recordkeepor by announcement, subject to
      modification by its backing document.  To "gain" an asset is to
      have it created in one's possession; to "award" an asset to an
      entity is to create it in that entity's possession.

      An asset generally CAN be destroyed by its owner by
      announcement, and an asset owned by the Lost and Found
      Department generally CAN be destroyed by its recordkeepor by
      announcement, subject to modification by its backing document.
      To "lose" (syn. "spend") an asset is to have it destroyed from
      one's possession; to "revoke" an asset from an entity is to
      destroy it from that entity's possession.

      An asset generally CAN be transferred by its owner to another
      entity by announcement, subject to modification by its backing
      document.  A fixed asset is one defined as such by its backing
      document, and CANNOT be transferred; any other asset is liquid.

      A currency is a class of asset defined as such by its backing
      document.  Instances of a currency with the same owner are
      fungible.  The Minimum Unit Quantity (MUQ) of each currency is
      one.

(hide)(show)
[CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): The self-ratifying asset
report is the complete list of ownerships of assets of that class; a
partial list does not self-ratify.]

[CFJ 1850 (called 22 December 2007): The general ability of the
recordkeepor to create assets does not include an ability to determine
who possesses them when created, so they are necessarily owned by the
Lost and Found Department [at the time of CFJ 1850, the Bank] upon
creation.]

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

[CFJ 2176 (called 22 September 2008): Entities may be fungible even if
not defined as such by this rule.]

[CFJ 2309 (called 11 December 2008): If two separate documents attempt
to define an asset with the same name, they refer to the same entity,
but the entity is not an asset.]

[CFJ 3016 (called 30 April 2011): "CAN recreate" means "CAN once
recreate".]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 5475 (Murphy), 24 March 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5496 (Murphy), 23 April 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008
Amended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008
Amended(8) by Proposal 5974 (Murphy; disi.), 25 November 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(10) by Proposal 6161 (Murphy), 31 March 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6253 (Quazie), 9 May 2009
Amended(12) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009
Amended(13) by Proposal 6430 (coppro; disi.), 18 August 2009
Amended(14) twice by Proposal 6650 (coppro), 10 March 2010
Amended(15) by Proposal 6792 (omd), 27 August 2010
Amended(16) by Proposal 6916 (omd; disi.), 2 January 2011
Amended(17) by Proposal 7298 (FKA441344), 9 September 2012


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

Rule 2343/7 (Power=1.7)
Victory Conditions

      Victory Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions
      explicitly defined as such by the Rules.  Such conditions are
      generally satisfied instantaneously, not continuously.

      A Victory Announcement is a published statement labeled as a
      Victory Announcement that states clearly that a specified person
      or persons have satisfied a specified Victory Condition while
      not satisfying any Losing Conditions (and explicitly and clearly
      states which persons and which victory condition).  A Victory
      Announcement is self-ratifying.

      The remainder of this rule notwithstanding, if an event's
      Victory Deadline has passed, then a person CANNOT Win the Game
      due to that event, and its Victory Deadline CANNOT be extended.
      An event's Victory Deadline is initially 28 days after the
      event, and CANNOT be extended except as specified by this rule.
      If it is within 28 days of passing, then anyone CAN extend it by
      28 days by announcement.  (Initiating, assigning a judge to, or
      judging a judicial case substantially relevant to the event
      implicitly counts as such an announcement.)

      When a Victory Announcement ratifies, or a judgement confirming
      the veracity of a victory announcement has been in effect and
      unappealed for one week, and provided the person(s) named have
      not already won via substantially the same events, the person(s)
      Win the Game.  There is no other method of winning the game.
      Winning the game does not cause Agora to end.

      The Herald SHALL award the Patent Title Champion to any person
      who wins the game, as soon as possible after the win.  The
      Herald SHOULD note the method of winning in eir report.

      Any person who wins the game while knowingly breaking a Rule, or
      while willingly and knowingly being a party to a Rules breach,
      where the breach is directly and substantially responsible for
      the win, commits the Class-4 Crime of Poor Sportsmanship.  If
      any party is found GUILTY of this crime, then, as soon as
      possible after the judgement has been in effect for one week,
      the Herald SHALL, as part of the punishment, revoke any Champion
      title awarded to the guilty parties as a result of the win.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7039 (scshunt), 16 May 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7078 (omd), 16 June 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7098 (omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7135 (G.), 6 November 2011
Amended(4) by Proposal 7139 (omd), 19 November 2011
Amended(5) by Proposal 7146 (omd), 25 January 2012
Amended(6) by Proposal 7147 (Murphy), 25 January 2012
Amended(7) by Proposal 7148 (Murphy), 25 January 2012


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

Rule 2337/5 (Power=3)
Promises

      Promises are a class of assets.  Horton is an Office and the
      recordkeepor for promises; Horton's weekly report includes the
      text, author, conditions, and owner of all existing promises.
      The Tree is an entity for holding promises.  Ownership of
      promises is limited to persons, judicial panels, and the Tree.

      A Player (the promise's author) CAN create a promise in eir
      possession by announcement, clearly specifying its text.
      Optionally, the author CAN, in the creating message specify one
      or more of the following:

         a) a title
         b) one or more conditions required to be true for the promise
            to be cashed;
         c) one or more conditions required to be true for the promise
            not to be destroyed when cashed; and
         d) one or more conditions under which the author of the
            promise can destroy it.

      To submit a promise means to create that promise and then
      transfer it to the Tree.

      Promises with the same text, author, and conditions are
      fungible.

      Creating and cashing promises is secured with power threshold 3;
      any other modifications to promise holdings are secured with
      power threshold 2.

      If a promise has one or more conditions under which the author
      of the promise can destroy it, and they are all satisfied, then
      the author CAN destroy that promise with notice.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7015 (G., ais523), 23 April 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7026 (Murphy, omd; disi.), 5 May 2011
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 7027 (omd), 5 May 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7082 (omd, Pavitra), 4 July 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7100 (ais523), 23 July 2011
Amended(4) by Proposal 7101 (Pavitra), 23 July 2011
Amended(5) by Proposal 7309 (scshunt), 27 September 2012


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

Rule 2338/4 (Power=3)
Cashing Promises

      An entity CAN cash a promise in eir possession by announcing
      that e does so, provided either that all conditions required to
      be true for the promise to be cashed are true and determinate,
      or it has no such conditions.  To do so, e must clearly and
      unambiguously identify the promise and SHOULD publish its text.

      When a promise is cashed, the text of the promise is interpreted
      as if it were published by its author as a standalone statement;
      if that statement requires additional context, that context MUST
      be supplied within the body of the message indicating the
      cashing.  Cashing a promise destroys it, unless the promise has
      at least one condition required to be true for it not to be
      destroyed when cashed, and all such conditions are true and
      determinate.

      If cashing a promise would lead, through its own actions or
      actions directly caused by its cashing, to a value being
      indeterminate an instant after the promise is cashed, then
      (other provisions of this or other rules notwithstanding) it
      CANNOT be cashed.

      If a promise is possessed by the Tree, any player except the
      promise's author CAN transfer it to emself by announcement, if e
      cashes the promise in the same message in which e transfers it
      to emself.

      Horton CAN destroy any promise Without Objection.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7015 (G., ais523), 23 April 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7026 (Murphy, omd; disi.), 5 May 2011
Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 7027 (omd), 5 May 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7100 (ais523), 23 July 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012
Amended(4) by Proposal 7290 (G.), 9 September 2012


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

Rule 2356/1 (Power=1)
Naughtiness

      The Police Vigilance Number (PVN) is an integer tracked by the
      CotC.  Virtue is a person switch tracked by the CotC, with
      values Virtuous (default) and Unvirtuous.

      A person CAN taunt the police by announcement specifying an
      integer from 1 to 14 inclusive. Doing so makes that person
      Unvirtuous and increases the PVN by N, and is the Class-N Crime
      of Naughtiness, where N is the specified integer.

      When the PVN comes to exceed 50, all Virtuous players satisfy
      the Victory Condition of Clean Nose.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7132 (Pavitra), 6 November 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7173 (omd), 16 February 2012


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

Rule 2354/0 (Power=1)
Costs

      The documents defining the conditions for performing an action
      can specify another action as a cost; paying the cost becomes a
      condition for performing the original action.  A person has paid
      the cost for an attempt to perform an action if e performed each
      action so defined as a cost:

      (1) in the same message as the attempt,
      (2) clearly indicating that the action was a payment of that
          cost for that attempt, and
      (3) not indicating that it was a payment for any other cost or
          attempt.

      If the cost is defined in assets, the required action is
      destroying those assets, or, if the documents specify a
      recipient entity, transferring them to that entity.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7117 (omd), 20 August 2011


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

Rule 2360/1 (Power=2)
Golems

      Golems are a class of second-class persons and a class of
      assets. Golemkeepor is an elected Office. The Golemkeepor is the
      recordkeepor for Golems. Causing a Golem to act is secured.  The
      Golemkeepor CAN destroy any Golem Without Objection. A Golem is
      eligible to Object to any such intent to destroy it. When a
      Golem is destroyed, all entities in eir possession are
      destroyed. When a Golem ceases to be a person, it is destroyed.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7171 (441344), 16 February 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7224 (omd, BuckyBot, Bucky), 10 June 2012


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

Rule 2361/1 (Power=2)
Slave Golems

      Slave Golems are a class of Golems and a class of second-class
      players.  Any player CAN create a Slave Golem in eir possession
      by announcement, specifying its name. The owner of a Slave Golem
      CAN cause it to take actions that are not otherwise IMPOSSIBLE
      by announcement. For all N, causing a Slave Golem to perform a
      Class-N Crime is the Class-N Crime of Not Doing Your Own Dirty
      Work. When a Slave Golem ceases to be a player, it is destroyed.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7171 (441344), 16 February 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7260 (Murphy, Bucky), 7 July 2012


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

Rule 2362/6 (Power=1)
Rubles

      Rubles are a currency.  The General Secretary is an office, and
      the recordkeepor of rubles.

      At the start of each week, half of each person's rubles (rounded
      up to the nearest integer) are destroyed, then two rubles are
      created in the possession of each first-class player.

      At the start of each month (after weekly destruction, if it
      coincides with the start of a week), each player gains a ruble
      for each Postulated office e holds, and  each active first-class
      player whose Posture has not been supine or leaning at any time
      during the past month gains a ruble.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7179 (Murphy), 26 February 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7211 (441344), 4 May 2012
Amended(2) by Proposal 7215 (omd), 4 May 2012
Amended(3) by Proposal 7215 (omd), 4 May 2012
Amended(4) by Proposal 7230 (omd), 10 June 2012
Amended(5) by Proposal 7280 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Amended(6) by Proposal 7282 (FKA441344), 23 August 2012


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

Rule 2363/0 (Power=1)
Poll Fees

      A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office
      for which no election is already in progress for a cost of 1
      ruble.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7179 (Murphy), 26 February 2012


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

Rule 2364/1 (Power=2)
Ballot Fees

      A player CAN change eir voting limit on a specified Agoran
      decision to twice its value at the start of that decision's
      voting period for a cost of 1 ruble.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7179 (Murphy), 26 February 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7182 (Murphy, Machiavelli), 26 February 2012
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 7220 (omd, Murphy), 10 June 2012


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

Rule 2376/1 (Power=1)
Props

      Props are a currency.

      The Air Traffic Controller is an office and the recordkeepor of
      props.

      Ownership of Props is restricted to first-class Players. Props
      CANNOT be created, transferred, or destroyed except as allowed
      by this rule or required by the rules in general.

      When a first-class player registers, 14 props are created in eir
      possession.  When a player deregisters, eir props are destroyed.

      Once per week, each first-class player CAN transfer a prop from
      one entity to another, provided that e explains why e chose each
      entity, and does not transfer it to emself.

      At the beginning of each month, one prop in the possession of
      each entity possessing more than fourteen props is destroyed,
      and one prop is created in the possession of each first-class
      player possessing less than fourteen props.

      Entities with at least 19 props are Pilots; the Pilot with the
      most props (if any) is the Captain. Entities with less than 9
      props are Marines.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7277 (FKA441344), 14 Augut 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7297 (scshunt), 9 September 2012


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

======================================================================
Definitions
      A category of definitions of terms and procedures that are
      widely used and do not readily fall into any other category.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 754/15 (Power=3)
Definition Definitions

      Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy
      function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:

      (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, capitalization, or
          dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of
          a word or phrase is inconsequential in all forms of
          communication, as long as the difference does not create an
          ambiguity in meaning, except for the purpose of reporting on
          or quoting the text of a legal document.  A difference
          between two nonempty spans of whitespace is inconsequential
          in all forms of communication for all purposes.

      (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules, along with its
          ordinary-language synonym not explicitly defined by the
          rules, by default has that meaning when used in any Rule of
          equal or lesser power, as well as any Rule of greater power
          that is clearly intended to comply with that meaning.

          The following clauses, where X and Y are both nouns or noun
          phrases, mean "X is/are defined as Y" unless they obviously
          have a different meaning:

            a) "X is/are Y"
            b) "Y is/are known as X"

      (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
          and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by
          default has the meaning it has in those contexts.

      (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
          by default has its ordinary-language meaning.

      In determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term,
      definitions contained in lower-powered Rules, are relevant and
      may provide guidance in helping to determine the meaning of a
      rule, but are not binding (especially if they differ greatly
      from the definitions that would be used otherwise).

      This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate
      terminology or grammar.

(hide)(show)
[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.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993
Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993
Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995
Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999
Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003
Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003
Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008
Amended(9) by Proposal 6021 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(10) by Proposal 6384 (Murphy), 3 July 2009
Amended(11) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(12) by Proposal 6650 (coppro), 10 March 2010
Amended(13) by Proposal 6732 (comex), 6 June 2010
Amended(14) by Proposal 6741 (comex; disi.), 1 July 2010
Amended(15) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011


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

Rule 2152/6 (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. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED:  Before performing the
         described action, the full implications of performing it
         should be understood and carefully weighed.

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

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

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

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

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1023/29 (Power=2)
Common Definitions

      The following terms are defined:

      (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible"
          mean "within X days", where X is 14 when the Speed is Slow,
          7 when it is Normal and 5 when it is Fast. This time period
          is set when the requirement is created (ie. 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.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2347/1 (Power=2)
Speed

      The Speed switch is an Agora Nomic switch, tracked by the
      Assessor, with values of Slow, Normal (default) and Fast. The
      Speed switch is secured.

      When the Speed has not been changed in the past month, the
      President CAN flip the Speed to Normal or Fast by announcement.
      At any time, players CAN flip it to a given value with Agoran
      Consent. In case of a lull, players CAN flip it to Slow without
      objection.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7063 (G.), 16 June 2011


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

Rule 1769/11 (Power=3)
Holidays

      A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules.

      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.

      During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any
      proposals, and the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a judge
      to any judicial case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to
      any judicial case.

      If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given
      time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the
      72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that
      action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends.

      If some Rule bases the time of a future event (including the
      time limit to perform an action) upon the time of another event,
      and

      a) that other event occurs during a Holiday, then the time at
         which that Holiday ends shall be used instead for the purpose
         of determining the time of the future event.

      b) the future event would occur during a Holiday or during the
         72 hours immediately following a Holiday, then the future
         event occurs 72 hours after the end of that Holiday instead.

      This Rule takes precedence over all Rules pertaining to the
      timing of events, and over all Rules which require events to be
      performed before a specified time.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2329/0 (Power=1)
Festival Days

      Agora Nomic recognizes and celebrates the following:

        * January 12-14 - Agora's Unbirthday observed (as described
          elsewhere)
        * April 1 - April Fool's Day
        * May 25 - Towel Day
        * June 30 - Agora's Birthday (as described elsewhere)
        * November 5 - Guy Fawkes Night
        * December 23 - Festivus

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6977 (Murphy, David Nicol), 30 March 2011


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

Rule 2162/3 (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.

      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.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 478/30 (Power=3)
Fora

      Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
      any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player
      shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora.

      Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and
      Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar.  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 active 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.

(hide)(show)
[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 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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1728/32 (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 X days earlier, where X is a
          number which depends on the Speed at the time of intention
          as follows: Slow: 5, Normal: 4, Fast: 2.

       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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2288/2 (Power=3)
Induction

      If a person CAN perform an action by announcement, e CAN perform
      it with N support, without N objections, with N Agoran Consent,
      or with notice, where N is a number appropriate for that form of
      dependent action.

      If a person CAN perform an action with notice, e CAN perform it
      without N objections, where N is an appropriate number.

      If a person CAN perform an action with M support, e CAN
      perform it with N support, where N is an appropriate number
      greater than M.

      If a person CAN perform an action without M objections, e CAN
      perform it without N objections, where N is an appropriate
      number less than M.

      If a person CAN perform an action via multiple different means
      of dependent actions, e CAN perform that action via multiple of
      them at the same time.

      If a player CAN perform an action with 0 support, then e CAN
      perform it by announcement.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6675 (comex), 22 March 2010
Amended(1) by Proposal 6807 (coppro), 27 August 2010
Amended(2) by Proposal 6969 (Murphy), 20 March 2011


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

Rule 2124/16 (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 first-class 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.

      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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2333/3 (Power=1)
Contests

      A player CAN make a non-contest document into a contest without
      3 objections; he then becomes that contest's contestmaster.  The
      document should contain a list of instructions for the players
      of Agora to play a type of subgame, which should be fair and
      generally allow all players to join and participate on an equal
      footing.  Anyone CAN cause a contest to cease to be a contest
      with notice and with 3 support.

      The contest's instructions should include conditions under which
      persons "win the contest".  Upon a true announcement by the
      contestmaster that one or more persons satisfy those conditions,
      all those persons satisfy the Victory Condition of Victory.
      Intentionally making a false such announcement is the Class-4
      Crime of Gaming the System.

      The contestmaster's weekly report contains all matters defined
      by the instructions to be part of eir weekly report, as well as
      the instructions.

      The contestmaster is, prima facie, the adjudicator of contest
      instructions and disputes.  Disputes should in general, be
      resolved with the spirit of the instructions in mind.  For the
      purpose of determining the internal gamestate of a contest
      (including whether its contestmaster falsely announced that
      persons won the contest), its instructions are generally
      interpreted in the same manner as a rule, but the reasonable
      opinion of the contestmaster takes precedence.  The
      contestmaster CAN change the instructions, or any internal
      gamestate defined by them, without 3 objections, but SHOULD only
      do so to improve gameplay or resolve disputes within the spirit
      of the original contest.  E can also appoint a new contestmaster
      without objection.

      An entity is bound by a contest if and only if it is its
      contestmaster.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6991 (omd), 10 April 2011
Amended(1) by Proposal 7080 (scshunt), 16 June 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7087 (omd), 23 July 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7149 (G.), 25 January 2012


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

Rule 2334/0 (Power=2)
Timers

      A timer is a switch whose values are the non-negative integers
      (default zero), representing a number of seconds.  Timer values
      and changes can be expressed in terms of larger durations (e.g.
      "1 day" is equivalent to "86400 seconds").

      Each timer is either counting down or not counting down.  When a
      timer has been continuously counting down for 1 second since its
      last change, it decreases by 1.

      When reporting a timer value, it is sufficient to provide enough
      information that its value at the time of the report can be
      calculated with reasonable effort (e.g. "<value> as of <date>
      00:00:00 UTC and has been counting down since then").

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7002 (Murphy), 20 April 2011


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

======================================================================
Offices
      A category concerning administrative positions held by persons
      within the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1006/34 (Power=2)
Offices

      An office is a role defined as such by the rules.  Each office
      is either vacant (default) or filled (held) by exactly one
      player.  An officer is the holder of an office, who may be
      referred to by the name of that office.

      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 or with 3 Agoran consent.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2143/16 (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, except if the Speed is Slow, in which case the duties
         SHALL be completed once each fortnight.  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.

      While performing weekly or monthly duties or publishing weekly
      or monthly reports, persons SHALL NOT publish information that
      is inaccurate or misleading.

      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.

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


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

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


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

Rule 2160/8 (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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2154/34 (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, or the office is vacant
          or assumed, or no election has been initiated for the office
          within 90 days before the announcement;

       b) with 4 Supporters, otherwise.

      When an election is initiated, the current holder of the office
      (if any) is initially considered to have been nominated and have
      accepted.

      During the first four days of the election (the nomination
      period), any player CAN by announcement nominate one or more
      active players.

      As soon as possible after the nomination period ends, the IADoP
      SHALL initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new
      officeholder. For this decision:

       1) The valid options are the active players (hereafter the
          candidates) who, during the election,

            a) received and accepted a nomination for the office
               before the decision was initiated (self-nomination
               constitutes acceptance), and

            b) did not decline a nomination for the office.

          The set of candidates can change after the decision is
          initiated.

       2) The eligible voters are the active first-class players.

       3) Each eligible voter's voting limit is one.

       4) If there are no valid options for the Decision, the IADoP
          SHALL, in place of initiating the decision, announce this
          fact, ending the election.  If there is exactly one valid
          option for the Decision, the IADoP SHALL, in place of
          initiating the Decision, announce the valid option (the
          candidate), thus installing that candidate into the office
          and ending the election.

      Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a
      candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2276/3 (Power=2)
Assumption of Vacant Offices

      Assumption is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP
      with values Postulated (default) and Assumed. Changes to
      Assumption are secured.  An active first-class player can make
      emself the holder of an elected office by announcement, provided
      that the office is either vacant or Assumed.

      Upon doing so, the office's Assumption is flipped to Assumed.

      When the holder of an office ceases to be an active player, the
      office's Assumption is flipped to Assumed.

      When a person comes to hold an office, or would come to hold an
      office if e did not hold it already, by a means other than the
      one provided by this Rule, then the Assumption of that office is
      flipped to Postulated.

      If a player has held an Assumed office continuously since the
      last time it was Postulated, e can flip its Assumption to
      Postulated by announcement.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6506 (Pavitra), 3 October 2009
Amended(1) by Proposal 6528 (coppro; disi.), 23 October 2009
Amended(2) by Proposal 6529 (Pavitra; disi.), 23 October 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6761 (coppro), 2 August 2010


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

Rule 2138/13 (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
      and reports.

      The IADoP's report includes the following:

      a) The holder of each office.
      b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office.
      c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that
         office began.
      d) The date when that office's reports were last published.

      The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP's
      report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying.

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

[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the IADoP's duties are:
  * hold election for office where contested (Rule 2154)
  * report officeholding (Rule 2138)]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1551/15 (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 a rule change unless the ratified document
      purports to include the text, title, and/or power of the rule
      being changed.  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.

      Ratifying a public document is secured.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2202/4 (Power=3)
Ratification Without Objection

      Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document,
      specifying its scope. If that document is an official report or
      a substantial portion thereof, until such a time as that report
      or portion is again ratified, the date and scope of the
      ratification become a part of the report.

      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) incorrect document 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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2201/5 (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 as soon as possible:

              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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

======================================================================
Agoran Decisions
      A category concerning the means by which this nomic makes
      collective 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: (hide)(show)
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 107/15 (Power=3)
Initiating Agoran Decisions

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

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

      (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to
          enable public agreement on which persons are eligible.  In
          particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is
          always sufficient for this purpose.

      (c) A clear indication of the options available.

      (d) The identity of the vote collector.

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

      The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting
      period for the decision. Where {X, Y} is a given Speed followed
      by a number of days, the voting period lasts for Y days when the
      Speed is X at the time of initiation: {Slow, 14}, {Normal, 7},
      {Fast, 5}. 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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 683/17 (Power=3)
Voting on Agoran Decisions

      An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
      ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
      indicating which one of the available options e selects.  To be
      valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:

      (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
          decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the
          time of submission.

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

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

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

      Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the
      first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the
      entity's voting limit on that decision.  The voting limit of an
      entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is
      zero.  The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran
      decision is two, except where rules say otherwise.

      The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots
      selecting that option.

      Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of
      ballots.  This rule takes precedence over any rule that would
      loosen the constraints specified by this rule.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2127/7 (Power=1)
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 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.

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


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2280/0 (Power=3)
Implicit Votes

      When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast
      ballots without explicitly specifying the number of ballots to
      be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3"), e casts a
      number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that decision.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6585 (c.; disi.), 6 December 2009


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

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: (hide)(show)
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 208/9 (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 as soon
      as possible after the end of the voting period.  To be valid,
      this announcement must satisfy the following conditions:

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

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

      (c) It specifies 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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

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.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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 879/28 (Power=2)
Quorum

      Quorum for an Agoran decision is as follows, where N is the
      number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that
      decision:

      - if the decision is Plutocratic, N/2 rounded up;

      - otherwise, N/3 rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this
        is greater than N, in which case quorum is N).

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2034/6 (Power=3)
Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges

      Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any
      existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is
      wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
      This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the
      validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general.

      Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be
      validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be
      changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.  This
      does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution.

      A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision
      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: (hide)(show)
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


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

======================================================================
Proposals
      A category concerning the primary and plenipotent system by
      which changes are made to the game.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 2350/6 (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.
      * A Chamber.

      Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool.  Once a
      proposal is created, none of its 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.

History: (hide)(show)
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

[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.]


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

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).

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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 1607/35 (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 and Chamber are initially the same as the
      corresponding values from the proposal, 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.  In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL,
      as part of eir weekly duties, distribute all proposals in the
      Proposal Pool that were in the Pool at the beginning of that
      week.

      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 active 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.  This portion of a public message purporting to
      be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying.

(hide)(show)
[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.]

[Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor's duties are:
  * not distribute proposals during holiday (Rule 1769)
  * distribute proposals (Rule 1607)
  * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (Rule 1607)
  * report proposal pool (Rule 1607)]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2373/1 (Power=3)
Voting Chambers

      Voting Chambers are a class of entity. Ordinary is a Voting
      Chamber.  Creating a Voting Chamber or making an entity a Voting
      Chamber is Secured with power 2.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7274 (FKA441344, ehird), 14 August 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7316 (omd), 16 October 2012


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

Rule 2374/2 (Power=3)
Democratization

      Democratic is a Voting Chamber.  If the Chamber of an entity is
      not Democratic, any first-class Player CAN set it to Democratic
      with 3 Agoran Consent.  Rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
      the voting limit of an eligible voter on a Democratic decision
      is 1.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7274 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7296 (scshunt), 9 September 2012
Retitled and amended(2) by Proposal 7316 (omd), 16 October 2012


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

Rule 2375/0 (Power=2)
Plutocratic Chamber

      Plutocratic is a Voting Chamber. The default voting limit of an
      entity on a Plutocratic Decision is zero. Any entity may spend a
      Ruble to increase an entity's voting limit on a Plutocratic
      Decision by 1.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7276 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012


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

Rule 2377/0 (Power=2)
Aerocratic Chamber

      Aerocratic is a Voting Chamber. The voting limit of an entity on
      an Aerocratic Decision is:
      *If that entity is the Captain, 5
      *otherwise, if that entity is a Pilot, 3
      *otherwise, if that entity is not a Marine, 1
      *otherwise, 0

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7278 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012


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

Rule 1950/27 (Power=3)
Decisions with Adoption Indices

      Adoption index is a 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.

      Chamber is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions with adoption
      indices and proposals, with values any Voting Chamber, by
      default Ordinary.

      Adoption index and Chamber are 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).
      c) Its Chamber.

      The eligible voters on a decision with an adoption index are
      those entities that were active first-class players at the start
      of its voting period.  Setting or changing an entity's voting
      limit on such a decision is secured with a power threshold of 2.

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

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

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.

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

[Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor's duties are:
  * vote collector for proposals (Rule 106)]


History: (hide)(show)
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 1698/3 (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, it cannot take effect, rules to the
      contrary notwithstanding.  If any other single change to the
      gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, it is cancelled
      and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2366/0 (Power=2)
Veto and Rubberstamp

      The Speaker CAN Veto an Ordinary decision with AI <= 3 by
      announcement; this sets its AI to 3.

      The Speaker CAN Rubberstamp an Ordinary decision with AI <= 2 by
      announcement; this sets its AI to 2, and among the
      otherwise-valid votes on a decision that has been Rubberstamped,
      only the first AGAINST vote per voter is valid.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7217 (omd), 4 May 2012


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

Rule 2381/0 (Power=1.7)
Win by Clout

      If a single Player has a voting limit on an Agoran Decision that
      has a Chamber, and that voting limit, at the end of the
      Decision's voting period, is greater than the combined voting
      limits of all other entities on that decision, that player
      satisfies the Victory Condition of Clout.

      If a correct Victory Announcement is made for such a win, this
      Victory Condition ceases to be a Victory Condition for Decisions
      in the same Chamber for 21 days following the announcement.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7312 (G.), 27 September 2012


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

======================================================================
Adjudication
      A category concerning the judicial system by which matters of
      controversy are resolved.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 991/12 (Power=2)
Judicial Cases Generally

      A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a
      procedure to settle a matter of controversy.

      Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular
      features as defined by other rules.  Subclasses of judicial case
      exist only as defined by the rules.  Defining a subclass of
      judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7.  A
      judicial case's subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or
      otherwise defaults to inquiry.

      The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for
      managing judicial activity.  The CotC's report includes the
      status of all judicial cases without a judgement.

      Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically
      been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers,
      to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts.

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

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

[Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts' duties
are:
  * not assign judges during holiday (Rule 1769)
  * report open judicial cases (Rule 991)
  * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (Rule 991)
  * refuse excess CFJ (Rule 2175)
  * assign judge to judicial case (Rule 1868)
  * not assign a poorly qualified judge (Rule 1868)
  * track player posture (Rule 1871)
  * rotate the bench (Rule 1871)
  * recuse tardy judge (Rule 2158)]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2158/10 (Power=2)
Judges

      At any time, each judicial case is either open (default),
      suspended, or has exactly one judgement.  This is a persistent
      status that changes only according to the rules.  The possible
      types of judgement for a judicial case depend on the type of
      case.

      When a judicial case is open and has a judge assigned to it, the
      judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and
      SHALL do so as soon as possible, unless e is recused from the
      case before the time limit for doing so has expired.  A judge
      SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial
      case.  A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only as defined
      by the rules.  Defining these things is secured, with a power
      threshold of 1.7.  If more than one judgement is valid and
      appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge's
      discretion.

      When a non-appeal judicial case is open, and its judge has
      violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, or is not an
      active player, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge
      with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this
      requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it
      first.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement
that e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e
can be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been
inappropriate.]

[CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement
is determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of
the reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5429 (Zefram), 9 February 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6045 (Taral), 13 January 2009
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(7) by Proposal 6391 (Murphy), 10 July 2009
Amended(8) by Proposal 6399 (Wooble), 17 July 2009
Amended(9) by Proposal 6404 (Murphy; disi.), 30 July 2009
Amended(10) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011


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

Rule 591/37 (Power=1.7)
Inquiry Cases

      Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases.  An inquiry
      case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular
      statement.  Any first-class person CAN initiate an inquiry case
      by announcement, specifying a block of text which SHOULD
      represent a statement to be inquired into.  (Including a yes/no
      question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer
      to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are
      synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.)

      The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the
      case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one
      person from assignment as judge of the case.

      The valid judgements for an inquiry case are as follows, based
      on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry
      case was initiated (if its truth value changed at that time,
      then its initial truth value is used):

      * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and
        logically false

      * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically
        true

      * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically
        undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately
        described as either false or true

      * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement is
        not relevant to the game or is an overly hypothetical
        extrapolation of the game or its rules to conditions that
        don't actually exist, or if it can be trivially determined
        from the outcome of another (possibly still undecided)
        judicial case that was not itself judged IRRELEVANT

      * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or
        too vague, or if the information available to the judge is
        insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and
        UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as
        to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute
        insufficiency of information for this purpose

      * MALFORMED, appropriate if the text identified by the initiator
        as the statement cannot be parsed as a single statement in the
        ordinary-language sense; however, a compound statement (e.g.
        "X and Y", "X or Y") counts as a single statement

      Players SHOULD take the judgement of the question in an inquiry
      case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, into account
      when attempting to determine what is possible and/or legal in
      future play (including when making future judgements); but the
      judgement does not directly affect the veracity of the
      statement.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1504/58 (Power=2)
Criminal Cases

      Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases.  Any person can
      initiate a criminal case by announcement, specifying:

      (a) a person (the Accused),
      (b) an action the Accused allegedly performed or failed to
          perform, and
      (c) a rule allegedly violated by that action/inaction.

      The initiator and each member of the Accused's basis are
      unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case.

      The valid judgements for a criminal case are as follows:

      * GUILTY with a valid sentence, appropriate if the judge finds,
        beyond a reasonable doubt, that ALL of the following are true:
       (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified
           act;
       (b) the breach occurred within 30 days prior to the case being
           initiated;
       (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal
           case with the same Accused, the same rule, and
           substantially the same alleged act;
       (d) the Accused should have reasonably believed that the
           alleged act did violate the specified rule;
       (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the
           breach without committing a different breach of equal or
           greater severity.

      * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate.  In
        delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of
        the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to
        be true beyond a reasonable doubt.

      When a sentence has been assigned as part of a GUILTY judgement,
      the Accused is known as the ninny, and the sentence is in
      effect.

      The valid sentences are:

      * DISCHARGE, appropriate only in extraordinary circumstances, if
        any available non-null punishment would be manifestly unjust.
        Has no effect.

      * APOLOGY with a set of up to ten prescribed words (the empty
        set if none is explicitly specified), appropriate for rule
        breaches of small consequence.  When in effect, the ninny
        SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal apology of at least
        200 words, including all the prescribed words, explaining eir
        error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement.
        Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize.

      * FINE with an amount of one class of asset, appropriate for
        rule breaches of small consequence.  An amount is only valid
        if the currency's backing document binds the ninny (the Rules
        are considered to bind all players) or the ninny has this
        amount of the asset, and the backing document specifies a
        maximum FINE amount, and the amount is no greater than the
        maximum.  When in effect, the ninny SHALL, as soon as
        possible, either destroy this amount of eir asset or transfer
        it to the Lost and Found Department. The ninny is only obliged
        to perform one destruction or transfer per case, even if
        sentences of this type are assigned more than once or go into
        effect more than once.

      * COMMUNITY SERVICE with a set of up to five tasks (the
        prescribed tasks) that the ninny CAN reasonably and legally
        perform, appropriate for rule breaches of moderate consequence
        if the severity of the rule breach is reasonably correlated
        with the consequences of performing the tasks, and especially
        if any other available non-null punishment would be either
        unjust or insufficient.  The balance between compensatory and
        punitive service is left to the judge's discretion.  While a
        sentence of this type is in effect, the ninny SHALL perform
        the prescribed tasks (as soon as possible, unless a different
        time limit is specified).

      * TIME OUT with a number of days between 7 and 21.  Stasis is a
        player timer, tracked by the Registrar.  When a sentence of
        TIME OUT goes into effect, the ninny becomes inactive, and eir
        stasis timer increases by the specified amount; when it ceases
        to be in effect, eir stasis timer is decreased by the
        specified amount.  While a player is inactive, eir stasis
        timer is counting down.  While a player's stasis timer is
        positive, e CANNOT become active.

      * EXILE, appropriate for rule breaches of the highest severity.
        When a judgement of EXILE has been in effect continuously for
        one week, the ninny is deregistered and CANNOT register for
        two months after that time.  During this period, e is known as
        a Fugitive.  Being a Fugitive is the Losing Condition of
        Seeking Asylum.

      Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class
      greater than 14.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is
expressed in the form "violating rule NNNN by XXX", the alleged act
for the purposes of the rules is only "XXX".]

[CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section
labelled "arguments" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal
case does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly
breached.]

[CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not
appropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.]

[CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is
appropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that
eir action is legal when it is not.]

[CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to
"APOLOGY" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words
constitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of
prescribed words.]

[CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed
words, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.]

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

[CFJ 3126 (called 19 November 2011): Committing an action defined as a
Crime is a violation of the rule so defining it.]

[CFJ 3128 (called 19 November 2011): An allegation that a person
committed a crime, mentioning the rule that defines the crime, is an
allegation that e violated that rule.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996
Amended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996
Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial
  (unattributed)
Amended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial
Amended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial
Amended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998
Amended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002
Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008
Amended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008
Amended(22) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008
Amended(23) by Proposal 5493 (Murphy), 23 April 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 5631 (BobTHJ), 29 July 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 5634 (Taral), 29 July 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 5642 (Sgeo, ais523, root,
BobTHJ, Wooble, Murphy, Zefram, Goethe, Pavitra),
  29 July 2008
Amended(27) by Proposal 5624 (Murphy), 29 July 2008
Amended(28) by Proposal 5650 (Pavrita), 29 July 2008
Amended(29) by Proposal 5711 (Murphy, woggle), 7 October 2008
Power changed from 1.7 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008
Amended(30) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008
Amended(31) by Proposal 5808 (Murphy; disi.), 1 November 2008
Amended(32) by Proposal 6000 (Murphy), 7 December 2008
Amended(33) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex,
  OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008
Amended(34) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle,
  ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(35) by Proposal 6054 (Wooble), 23 January 2009
Amended(36) by Proposal 6112 (Taral), 1 March 2009
Amended(37) by Proposal 6119 (Goethe), 1 March 2009
Amended(38) by Proposal 6146 (Murphy), 23 March 2009
Amended(39) by Proposal 6206 (coppro), 27 April 2009
Amended(40) by Proposal 6354 (ais523), 17 June 2009
Amended(41) by Proposal 6355 (Yally), 23 June 2009
Amended(42) by Proposal 6401 (Murphy), 17 July 2009
Amended(43) by Proposal 6463 (C-walker), 15 September 2009
Amended(44) by Proposal 6522 (Walker), 23 October 2009
Amended(45) by Proposal 6535 (Murphy), 4 November 2009
Amended(46) by Proposal 6557 (BobTHJ; disi.), 13 November 2009
Amended(47) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010
Amended(48) by Proposal 6932 (scshunt), 2 January 2011
Amended(49) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(50) by Proposal 7002 (Murphy), 20 April 2011
Amended(51) by Proposal 7005 (Walker, Yally, G.), 20 April 2011
Amended(52) by Proposal 7010 (Walker), 20 April 2011
Amended(53) by Proposal 7012 (Walker), 20 April 2011
Amended(54) by Proposal 7034 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(55) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(56) by Proposal 7118 (scshunt), 20 August 2011
Amended(57) by Proposal 7146 (omd), 25 January 2012
Amended(58) by Proposal 7265 (ais523), 25 July 2012


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

Rule 2277/3 (Power=2)
Appeals of Criminal Cases

      An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal
      case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by
      announcement.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6536 (Murphy), 4 November 2009
Amended(1) by cleaning (omd), 30 November 2010
Amended(2) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(3) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011


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

Rule 2205/4 (Power=1)
Judicial Arguments and Evidence

      Each of the following participants in a judicial case SHOULD
      present such arguments and/or evidence (explicitly labeled)
      relevant to that case as e is reasonably able to collect:

      1) The initiator, when initiating the case.

      2) For a criminal case, the defendant, before judgement is
         delivered.

      3) The judge, when delivering judgement.

      When submitting arguments and/or evidence, a player SHOULD
      classify matters of legal interpretation as arguments, and
      matters of fact as evidence.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008
Amended(2) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009
Amended(3) by Proposal 6985 (Walker), 10 April 2011
Amended(4) by Proposal 7227 (omd), 10 June 2012


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

Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7)
Judicial Panels

      A judicial panel is a structure whereby a group of two or more
      persons (its members) act together for the purpose of judging
      judicial cases.  A judicial panel's membership cannot change,
      and if two panels have the same membership then they are the
      same panel.  Judicial panels exist implicitly, without any
      specific act of formation.

      A judicial panel CAN send messages by means of any of its
      members sending a message identified as being from the panel,
      with the unanimous Support of the panel's other members.  By
      this mechanism a judicial panel can act, in situations where the
      rules state that an action is performed by sending a message.
      The rules may specify other mechanisms by which the judicial
      panel CAN act.

      A judicial panel can incur obligations.  The members of a panel
      SHALL act collectively to ensure that the panel satisfies all of
      its obligations.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007
Amended(3) by Proposal 5439 (Murphy), 13 February 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 5498 (Goethe), 23 April 2008
Amended(5) by Proposal 5552 (Murphy, root), 21 June 2008
Amended(6) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009


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

Rule 2341/0 (Power=1.7)
Judgements by Judicial Panels

      As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned to a
      case, each member of the panel SHALL publish an opinion
      indicating a valid judgement to assign to the case -- only the
      last such published opinion for each member is used to determine
      the outcome.  Each member SHOULD choose an appropriate
      judgement, and include arguments for eir choice.

      If, immediately after either all members have so published or
      the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the
      members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to
      deliver the judgement in question.  If the panel publishes a
      valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules,
      the requirement for individual members to publish individual
      opinions is waived.

      If an open case is assigned to a judicial panel, and one of its
      members previously published an opinion for that case as part of
      the same or a different judicial panel, then that opinion stands
      for the newly-assigned panel unless the case was judged and
      reopened in the meanwhile.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7038 (scshunt), 16 May 011


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

Rule 2318/2 (Power=1.7)
Motions to Reconsider

      If a non-Appeals judicial case (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 player who files such a Motion SHOULD include
      arguments as to why the case needs reconsideration, and such
      arguments become part of the record of the case.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 6869 (G.), 8 November 2010
Amended(1) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011
Amended(2) by Proposal 7065 (scshunt), 16 June 2011


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

Rule 911/47 (Power=1.7)
Appeal Cases

      Appeal cases are a subclass of judicial cases.  An appeal case's
      purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that
      has been assigned to a judicial case, and make remedy if the
      judgement was poorly chosen.  The assignment of judgement being
      questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the
      prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer
      to the circumstances of the prior assignment.

      An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal
      case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player
      with 2 support.  However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding,
      an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by
      a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an
      appeal has already been initiated.

      The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case
      are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each
      of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior
      case and none is the prior judge.  If possible, the CotC SHALL
      assign a panel where each of the members is well qualified to be
      assigned as judge of the prior case.

      The valid judgements for an appeal case are of the form
      "<action> with prejudice" or "<action> without prejudice".  Such
      a judgement is generally appropriate if and only if
      (1) the action is appropriate, and
      (2) the judgement is with prejudice if and only if the prior
          judge made an error in eir judgement which could have been
          reasonably avoided, or generally inappropriately discharged
          eir duties in the case.

      The valid values of <action> and their associated effects are as
      follows:

      * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for
        the prior case; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior
        case again

      * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about whether
        the prior judgement was appropriate; the prior case is
        rendered open again; the judge SHOULD assign this judgement if
        the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make
        a better judgement if given a new opportunity

      * REMIT, appropriate if there is serious doubt about whether the
        prior judgement was appropriate, or if the prior judge
        exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific
        and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not
        arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly
        incidental material benefit common among many players); the
        judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior
        case is rendered open again; the judge SHOULD assign this
        judgement if the judge believes that the judge of the prior
        case will not make a better judgement if given a new
        opportunity

      * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior
        case, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in
        the prior case and the replacement judgement is appropriate
        for the prior case; the replacement judgement is assigned to
        the prior case

      The appropriateness of the prior judgement is measured at the
      time it was assigned.

      When an appeal case is initiated, the prior case is suspended,
      and remains so until the appeal case is judged.

      The judge of a previously-appealed case SHALL NOT assign the
      same judgement to it without new reasoning that addresses the
      serious doubt about its appropriateness.  Violating this
      prohibition is the Class-2 Crime of Lazy Judging.

      A person SHALL NOT appeal a judgement (except on a criminal
      case) unless e reasonably believes that the judgement might be
      inappropriate.

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 2342/0 (Power=1.7)
Judicial Appeals Panels

      If the time period for judging an appeals case ends with no
      majority opinion among members of the panel assigned to it, then
      the CotC CAN, and SHALL as soon as possible, by announcement
      cause the panel to judge either REMAND or REMIT with or without
      prejudice, whichever e feels is most appropriate. E SHALL NOT
      assign the case to another panel solely due to its failure to
      judge. These requirements are waived if the panel delivers a
      judgment in the meanwhile.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7038 (scshunt), 16 May 011


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

Rule 2175/6 (Power=1)
Judicial Retraction and Excess

      A new case is a judicial case (other than an appeal 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 Clerk of the
      Courts 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: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1868/18 (Power=2)
Judge Assignment Generally

      At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it
      (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge.
      This is a persistent status that changes only according to the
      rules.

      When a judicial case is open and has no judge assigned, the CotC
      CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement,
      and SHALL do so as soon as possible.

      The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial
      case are the active first-class players who have not previously
      been assigned as its judge, subject to modification by other
      rules.  Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not
      inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge of a
      case to which e is already assigned.  Rules to the contrary
      notwithstanding, entities other than first-class players are
      always unqualified to judge.

      When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a
      judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be
      the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is
      still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from
      that case by announcement.

      Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is
      secured, with a power threshold of 1.5.

      To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge.
      Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing
      judge, if any.  A recusal "with cause" is a recusal defined as
      such by the rules.

      A player CAN favor or disfavor a judicial case by announcement.
      When assigning a judge to a judicial case, the CotC, if
      possible, SHALL assign a player who has favored it and SHALL NOT
      assign a player who has disfavored it.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select
a Judge who is qualified ["eligible" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the
time that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was
qualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the
identity of that Player is announced.]

[CFJ 3009 (called 24 April 2011): An entity poorly qualified to judge
a case is necessarily qualified to judge that case.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998
Amended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000
Amended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001
Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007
Amended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy,
  woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009
Amended(14) by Proposal 6264 (comex), 11 May 2009
Amended(15) by Proposal 6279 (Murphy), 19 May 2009
Amended(16) by Proposal 6510 (Murphy), 3 October 2009
Amended(17) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011
Amended(17.1) by Proposal 7019 (Murphy), 16 May 2011
Amended(18) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011


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

Rule 1871/30 (Power=1.5)
The Standing Court

      Posture is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts,
      with the following values:

      * Standing.  Standing players are generally qualified to judge.

      * Sitting.  Sitting players are poorly qualified to judge, but
        will generally become qualified when the CotC rotates the
        bench.

      * Leaning.  Leaning players are poorly qualified to judge, but
        are generally qualified to serve on appeal panels.

      * Supine (default if the current value of Initial Posture is
        undefined; otherwise the current value of Initial Posture is
        the default).  Supine players are unqualified to judge.

      Changes to posture are secured.

      A player CAN flip eir posture to any non-standing value by
      announcement.

      When the CotC assigns a player as judge, that player becomes
      sitting.

      The CotC CAN rotate the bench (change all sitting players to
      standing) by announcement, but SHALL NOT do so unless, of the
      judicial cases requiring assignment:

       a) no entity is well-qualified to be assigned to any of them;

       b) e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns
          a judge to at least one of them.

      When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e CAN flip
      that player's posture to supine by announcement in a timely
      fashion.

      Initial Posture is an Agora Nomic switch, tracked by the
      Justiciar in eir monthly report, with the same values as Posture
      and a default value of Supine.  The Justiciar CAN flip Initial
      Posture with Support.

(hide)(show)
[CFJ 1765 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change
a player's posture due to recusal, this rule makes em capable of doing
so.]

[CFJ 1766 (called 16 October 2007): When the CotC is obliged to change
a player's posture due to recusal, eir capability to do so exists as
long as the obligation does, and this obligation does not terminate
due to the time limit running out.]


History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 3821 (Blob), Jan. 12 1999
Amended(1) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002
Amended(2) by Proposal 4342 (root), 8 July 2002
Amended(3) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003
Amended(4) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004
Amended(5) by Proposal 4596 (Murphy), 4 July 2004
Amended(6) by Proposal 4648 (Kolja), 22 March 2005
Amended(7) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005
Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006
Amended(9) by Proposal 4912 (Murphy), 21 March 2007
Amended(10) by Proposal 4958 (Murphy), 3 June 2007
Retitled by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007
Amended(11) by Proposal 4991 (Murphy), 6 June 2007
Amended(12) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007
Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(13) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007
Amended(14) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007
Amended(15) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007
Amended(16) by Proposal 5249 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(17) by Proposal 5250 (AFO), 14 October 2007
Amended(18) by Proposal 5251 (Goddess Eris), 14 October 2007
Amended(19) by Proposal 5259 (Zefram), 27 October 2007
Amended(20) by Proposal 5261 (root; disi.), 31 October 2007
Amended(21) by Proposal 5456 (Goddess Eris), 9 March 2008
Amended(22) by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008
Amended(23) by Proposal 5474 (Murphy), 24 March 2008
Amended(24) by Proposal 5500 (Murphy; disi.), 26 April 2008
Amended(25) by Proposal 5771 (root), 17 October 2008
Amended(26) by Proposal 6400 (Murphy), 17 July 2009
Amended(27) by Proposal 6483 (Pavitra), 18 September 2009
Amended(28) by Proposal 6967 (Wooble), 20 March 2011
Amended(29) by Proposal 7279 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Amended(30) by Proposal 7287 (G.), 9 September 2012


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

Rule 2378/1 (Power=2)
The Justiciar

      The Justiciar is an office; its holder is responsible for hot
      and cold running justice.

      Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Clerk of the Courts
      CANNOT assume or be nominated for the office of Justiciar, and
      the Justiciar CANNOT assume or be nominated for the office of
      Clerk of the Courts.

      A CFJ may be submitted to the Justiciar.  For such a CFJ, the
      Justiciar shall perform all duties and fulfill all roles that
      would otherwise be assigned to the Clerk of the Courts. This
      takes precedence over Rules that would otherwise assign duties
      and roles regarding a CFJ to the Clerk of the Courts.

      All persons are encouraged to submit a CFJ to the Justiciar only
      when there is a good reason not to submit it to the Clerk of the
      Courts.

      If the Justiciar's Posture is neither Standing nor Sitting, then
      it is flipped to Sitting.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7279 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012
Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 7287 (G.), 9 September 2012
Amended(1) by Proposal 7287 (G.), 9 September 2012


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

Rule 2204/0 (Power=1.5)
Linked Assignments

      When the Clerk of the Courts assigns a player as judge of two or
      more judicial cases consecutively in the same announcement, that
      player only becomes sitting upon the last such assignment, rules
      to the contrary notwithstanding.  The CotC SHOULD NOT do this
      unless those cases are closely related in their subject matter.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008


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

Rule 2164/4 (Power=1)
Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer

      The judge of a judicial case CAN recuse emself from it at any
      time by announcement.  Such a recusal is with cause if and only
      if e has been assigned to the case for at least four days.

      An entity (the transferee) CAN, with consent from the current
      judge of a judicial case (the transferor), assign emself as the
      new judge of that case, provided that e is qualified to be
      assigned as judge of that case, and e immediately (in the same
      announcement) assigns a judgement to that case.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5131 (Zefram), 13 August 2007
Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007
Amended(2) by Proposal 5465 (Murphy), 13 March 2008
Amended(3) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008
Amended(4) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011


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

Rule 2212/1 (Power=1.7)
Judicial Declarations

      A judicial declaration is a document labeled as such and
      published by a person purporting to be the judge of a specific
      judicial case, which contains only information e would be
      required by the Rules, were e the judge, to publish in a
      judicial declaration.

      The author of a judicial declaration SHOULD attempt to ratify it
      without objection immediately after publishing it; players
      SHOULD NOT object to such an attempt unless the judicial
      declaration was invalid or illegally published.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008
Amended(1) by Proposal 6923 (omd, G.; disi.), 2 January 2011


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

Rule 2367/0 (Power=3)
Messy Statements

      A statement is messy if its truth value cannot be evaluated in a
      top-down fashion without encountering some form of infinite
      regress, such as (but not limited to) self-reference.

      For the purposes of the rules, messy statements are considered
      inaccurate and incorrect regardless of their truth value.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7249 (omd), 10 June 2012


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

======================================================================
Patent Titles and Degrees
      A category concerning titles of honor and dishonor.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 649/33 (Power=1.5)
Patent Titles

      A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a
      person's distinction.  The Herald is an office; its holder is
      responsible for tracking Patent Titles.

      A person specifically authorized by the rules to award (revoke)
      a Patent Title SHALL do so as soon as possible after the
      conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there
      is an open judicial case contesting the validity of those
      conditions.  Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by any other
      method is secured.

      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.

      While a Patent Title has been awarded to (and not revoked from)
      an entity, that entity is said to Bear that Patent Title.  The
      status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as
      explicitly set out in the Rules.  The Herald's monthly report
      includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one entity
      Bears, with a list of which entities Bear it.

      As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked,
      the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation.

      When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the
      patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear
      that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise.

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

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

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

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

[Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald's duties are:
  * report Patent Titles (Rule 649)
  * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (Rule 649)
  * initiate decision for degree award (Rule 1367)
  * award degrees (Rule 1367)]


History: (hide)(show)
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


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

Rule 1367/16 (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 degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once, and
      CANNOT be revoked once awarded.

      After a player publishes a suitable thesis with explicit intent
      to qualify for a degree (the specific degree need not be
      mentioned), the Herald SHALL, as soon as possible, initiate an
      Agoran Decision to award that player (the author) a degree as
      follows:

       - The available options are FAILING GRADE and each degree that
         the author does not have. The available options can change
         during the voting period.

       - The eligible voters are each active player at the time the
         decision is initiated.

       - Each player's voting limit on the decision is one plus the
         number of degrees e holds.

       - The specific thesis for which the degree is to be awarded is
         an essential parameter of the decision (but not the text of
         that thesis).

       - The outcome is, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the
         highest-ranked degree such that more than half the votes cast
         were for that degree or a higher degree, or FAILING GRADE if
         there was no such degree.

      When the Herald resolves the decision, e CAN and SHALL award the
      author the degree selected by Agora, or no degree if FAILING
      GRADE was the outcome.

History: (hide)(show)
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


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

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

      The set of patent titles defined in this rule constitute the
      Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic; the titles may be collectively
      referred to as "Heroic titles" and a Bearer of a Heroic title as
      a Hero.

      Heroic titles are Agora's premier 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.  Players SHOULD NOT cause heroic titles to be
      revoked.  Heroes are entitled to use the abbreviation of eir
      title as post-nomial letters in Agora communications and
      reports.

      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: (hide)(show)
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


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

======================================================================
Trophies
      A category concerning commemoration and symbolism.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

Rule 1727/17 (Power=1)
Happy Birthday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      BE IT FURTHERMORE RESOLVED that Agora's Unbirthday is defined to
      be the entire day of December 30, GMT +1200, of each year; but,
      since that falls within a Holiday, is observed during the entire
      days of January 12 through 14, GMT +1200, of each year.

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


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

Rule 2355/0 (Power=1.1)
For It Was Not To B

      WHEREAS B Nomic, a well-played Nomic, did claim to pass a
      proposal directing a player to end the game, where that person
      fled B in hopes of never having to use that terrible power; and

      WHEREAS B Nomic was in fact recently discovered to have been
      locked in perpetual Emergency since 2002, such that its game can
      never advance; and

      WHEREAS B Nomic's imagined gameplay did at one point submit to
      being a Protectorate of Agora, indicating its consent to be
      ruled by the most glorious of Nomic; and

      WHEREAS B Nomic's imagined gameplay did later adopt the entire
      Ruleset of Agora, indicating true reverence as imitation is the
      sincerest form of flattery; and

      WHEREAS B Nomic was renowned for its pedantry, a true virtue
      among Nomics; and

      WHEREAS Agora should honour its Protectorates, even those that
      departed it and, in fact, was never actually able to submit to
      Agora's rule; and

      WHEREAS Agora should honour any Nomic deserving of true
      greatness;

      BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that the entirety of June 5th in each
      year be observed in Agora as B Nomic Memorial Day; and

      BE IT ALSO HEREBY PROCLAIMED that on B Nomic Memorial Day,
      players should exhibit legendary pedantry and attempt to find
      places in Agoran history where the rules were misapplied with
      still-lasting effects.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7120 (scshunt), 10 September 2011


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

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!

(hide)(show)
[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: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002


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

Rule 2380/2 (Power=1)
Richard Potato Boat

      scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause this rule to perform a
      specified Rule Change.  scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause a
      proposal to take effect.  scshunt CAN, by announcement, cause
      this Rule to perform an arbitrary change to the gamestate.

History: (hide)(show)
Created by Proposal 7310 (scshunt), 27 September 2012
Amended(1) by Rule 2380 (scshunt), 28 September 2012
Title changed by Rulekeepor, 16 October 2012
Amended(2) by Rule 2380 (scshunt), 4 November 2012


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

======================================================================
Garbage Bin (hide)(show)

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


      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.]

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

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.]

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

END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET

window.onscroll = document.body.onscroll = function() { var x = document.body.scrollTop + (document.body.scrollHeight/2); alert(x); } */?>