THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET Last proposal with recorded effect on this ruleset: 6084 Last change to this ruleset: by proposal 6084 Rule ID numbers: highest orderly: 2237 disorderly: none ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Statistics Current total number of rules: 132 Power distribution: 1 with Power=4 33 with Power=3 53 with Power=2 5 with Power=1.7 6 with Power=1.5 34 with Power=1 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Index of Categories * The Game of Agora * Rules * Players * Definitions * Offices * Agoran Decisions * Proposals * Adjudication * Patent Titles and Degrees * Contract Law * Foreign Relations * Trophies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 2186: Victory Rule 2110: Win by Paradox Rule 2199: Ribbons Rule 2019: Prerogatives Rule 104: First Speaker * Rules Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules Rule 1482: Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules with Equal Power Rule 105: Rule Changes Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor Rule 2221: Cleanliness Rule 2216: The Repeal-o-Matic Rule 1750: Read the Ruleset Week Rule 2223: Win by Junta * Players Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora Rule 2174: Aliens Rule 2170: Who Am I? Rule 2150: Personhood Rule 2145: Partnerships Rule 2144: Limited Partnerships Rule 2139: The Registrar Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus Rule 2130: Activity Rule 2177: The Senate Rule 2215: Truthfulness Rule 2228: Rests Rule 2229: Just Resting * Definitions Rule 754: Definition Definitions Rule 2152: Mother, May I? Rule 1023: Common Definitions Rule 1769: Holidays Rule 2161: ID Numbers Rule 2153: Interest Index Rule 2146: Indices Rule 2162: Switches Rule 478: Fora Rule 1728: Dependent Actions Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction Rule 2166: Assets Rule 2181: The Accountor * Offices Rule 1006: Offices Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties Rule 2227: Interest Index of Offices Rule 2160: Deputisation Rule 2154: Election Procedure Rule 2217: Periodic Elections Rule 2138: The International 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 2196: Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions Rule 2127: Conditional Votes Rule 2222: Maximum Voting Limits Rule 2168: Extending the voting period Rule 208: Resolving Agoran decisions Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora Rule 879: Quorum Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges * Proposals Rule 106: Adopting Proposals Rule 2224: Interest Index of Proposals Rule 1607: The Promotor Rule 1950: Voting on Democratic Decisions Rule 2156: Voting on Ordinary Decisions Rule 2142: Support Democracy Rule 2236: Committee Membership Rule 2235: Committee Rejection Rule 2137: The Assessor Rule 1450: Separation of Powers Rule 1698: Agora Is a Nomic Rule 2134: Win by Clout Rule 2211: The Grand Poobah Rule 2126: Notes Rule 2188: Win by Proposal * Adjudication Rule 991: Judicial Cases Generally Rule 2225: Interest Index of Judicial Cases Rule 2158: Judicial Questions Rule 591: Inquiry Cases Rule 2230: Notices of Violation Rule 1504: Criminal Cases Rule 2169: Equity Cases Rule 2205: Judicial Arguments and Evidence Rule 2157: Judicial Panels Rule 911: Appeal Cases Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess Rule 1868: Judge Assignment Generally Rule 1871: The Standing Court Rule 2203: Hawkishness Rule 2226: Judicial Rank Rule 2204: Linked Assignments Rule 2164: Judicial Self-Recusal and Case Transfer Rule 2212: Judicial Declarations * Patent Titles and Degrees Rule 649: Patent Titles Rule 1922: Defined Regular Patent Titles Rule 1367: Degrees Rule 2231: Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic * Contract Law Rule 1742: Contracts Rule 2197: Defining Contract Changes Rule 2198: Making Contract Changes Rule 2178: Public Contracts Rule 2237: Subsidized Contracts Rule 2173: The Notary Rule 2191: Pledges Rule 2179: Points Rule 2136: Contests Rule 2232: Contest Axes Rule 2233: Awarding and Revoking Points Rule 2234: Rewarding Contestmasters Rule 2187: Win by High Score * Foreign Relations Rule 2200: Nomic Definitions Rule 2135: Advertising Rule 402: Identity of the Speaker Rule 103: Role of the Speaker Rule 2148: The Ambassador Rule 2185: Foreign Relations Rule 2147: Protectorates Rule 2159: Protective Decrees Rule 2206: Foreign Trade Rule 2207: Trade Embargo * Trophies Rule 1727: Happy Birthday Rule 2151: Agoran Arms Rule 2029: Town Fountain ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Committee Assignments * Committee on Rules Rule 105: Rule Changes Rule 1688: Power Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability Rule 693: Agoran Decisions Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions Rule 208: Resolving Agoran decisions Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora Rule 106: Adopting Proposals Rule 1607: The Promotor Rule 2137: The Assessor * Committee on Administration Rule 1006: Offices Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties Rule 2160: Deputisation Rule 2154: Election Procedure Rule 2217: Periodic Elections Rule 2138: The International Associate Director of Personnel * Committee on the Judiciary Rule 991: Judicial Cases Generally Rule 2158: Judicial Questions Rule 1868: Judge Assignment Generally Rule 591: Inquiry Cases Rule 2157: Judicial Panels Rule 911: Appeal Cases * Committee on Crime Rule 2230: Notices of Violation Rule 1504: Criminal Cases Rule 2228: Rests Rule 2229: Just Resting * Committee on Finance Rule 2166: Assets Rule 2181: The Accountor Rule 2126: Notes Rule 2199: Ribbons * Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship Rule 1742: Contracts Rule 2173: The Notary Rule 2197: Defining Contract Changes Rule 2198: Making Contract Changes Rule 2178: Public Contracts Rule 2191: Pledges Rule 2145: Partnerships Rule 2169: Equity Cases * Committee on Indian Affairs Rule 2179: Points Rule 2136: Contests Rule 2232: Contest Axes Rule 2233: Awarding and Revoking Points Rule 2187: Win by High Score * Committee on Foreign Relations Rule 2200: Nomic Definitions Rule 2148: The Ambassador Rule 2185: Foreign Relations Rule 2147: Protectorates Rule 2159: Protective Decrees Rule 2206: Foreign Trade Rule 2207: Trade Embargo ---------------------------------------------------------------------- [Rules are listed as follows. "nnnn" is the rule's ID number, mandated by rule 2141 and governed by rule 2161. "r" is the revision number, which is not defined by the rules. "p" is the rule's power, as defined by rule 1688 and governed by rule 2141. Rule titles are governed by rule 2141.] Rule nnnn/r (Power=p) Title of Rule Text of rule. [Annotations in square brackets are unofficial, added at the rulekeepor's discretion. These annotations have no legal force.] History: Historical annotations required by rule 1681. An ellipsis (...) indicates that the history is incomplete. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== The Game of Agora A category concerning this nomic generally, constitutional matters, and relationships between the most fundamental nomic entities. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2105/3 (Power=1) The Map of Agora ____ _ /| DARWIN -> \_ |/ | / \ __/ / | | <- DSV / / | \ _ \ \_ | \ MORNINGTON CRESCENT -> / | <- GOETHE BARRIER _ _/ | \_/\_/ \ REEF / \\ <- SHARK BAY | | / | | \ <- TOWNSVILLE ___/ | | \_ __/ | | .___o ) | / | | ~~vv ===~~~ <-OSCAR'S MIRE / O <- SHERLOCK NESS | |/\ | | | |_ | | | EMERALD -> \ \ |__________=_____, \ BRISBANE / | | | <-' \ O <- LT. ANNE MOORE | __ _\ \ | |_______/ \/ | LORD | __/\ <- TARCOOLA / HOWE -> \ PERTH __/ \_ / / | <-' _ __/ | /| IVANHOE -> | <-. / _/ \/ \ / / | / WOLLONGONG |_ / <- ESPERANTO v /__ |_ / <- CANBERRA \_/ \ | \_ _| __ __ | | \__/ __ \ / __ \___=_ ___| / \ | / \ MANUBOURNE -> \/ \|/ _,.---v---._ /\__ /\__/\ / \ | | \_ _/ / \ | / \ \_| @ __| \_/ <- HOBART \ \_ \ ,__/ / ~~~`~~~~~~~~~~~~~~/~~~~ History: Created by Proposal 4735 (Maud), 5 May 2005 Amended(1) by Proposal 4807 (Sherlock), 15 June 2005 Amended(2) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(3) by Proposal 4946 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 101/11 (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. 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, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. 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 rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. [CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.] [CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.] [CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according to the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate any retroactive changes made in the future.] [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they have the rule-defined status of "player".] [CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.] [CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which other players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself a violation of that rule.] [CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that "no interpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person's defined rights" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of Agoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person's defined rights are not being limited.] [CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the fora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes, and is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner and type of participation.] [CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not publish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the right of participation in the fora.] [CFJ 1753 (called 28 September 2007): The right to cease playing applies only to those who have the rule-defined status of "player", not to those who play the game in the broader sense without having that official status.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2125/4 (Power=3) Regulation Regulations (a) Definitions. In this section: (1) Administrator.--The term `Administrator' means the Administrator of the Western Area Power Administration. (2) Secretary.--The term `Secretary' means the Secretary of the Treasury. (b) Authority.-- (1) In general.--Notwithstanding any other provision of law, subject to paragraphs (2) through (5)-- (A) the Western Area Power Administration may borrow funds from the Treasury; and (B) the Secretary shall, without further appropriation and without fiscal year limitation, loan to the Western Area Power Administration, on such terms as may be fixed by the Administrator and the Secretary, such sums (not to exceed, in the aggregate (including deferred interest), $3,250,000,000 in outstanding repayable balances at any one time) as, in the judgment of the Administrator, are from time to time required for the purpose of-- (i) constructing, financing, facilitating, planning, operating, maintaining, or studying construction of new or upgraded electric power transmission lines and related facilities with at least one terminus within the area served by the Western Area Power Administration; and (ii) delivering or facilitating the delivery of power generated by renewable energy resources constructed or reasonably expected to be constructed after the date of enactment of this section. (2) Interest.--The rate of interest to be charged in connection with any loan made pursuant to this subsection shall be fixed by the Secretary, taking into consideration market yields on outstanding marketable obligations of the United States of comparable maturities as of the date of the loan. (3) Refinancing.--The Western Area Power Administration may refinance loans taken pursuant to this section within the Treasury. (4) Participation.--The Administrator may permit other entities to participate in the financing, construction and ownership projects financed under this section. (5) Congressional review of disbursement.--Effective upon the date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall have the authority to have utilized $1,750,000,000 at any one time. If the Administrator seeks to borrow funds above $1,750,000,000, the funds will be disbursed unless there is enacted, within 90 calendar days of the first such request, a joint resolution that rescinds the remainder of the balance of the borrowing authority provided in this section. (c) Transmission Line and Related Facility Projects.-- (1) In general.--For repayment purposes, each transmission line and related facility project in which the Western Area Power Administration participates pursuant to this section shall be treated as separate and distinct from-- (A) each other such project; and (B) all other Western Area Power Administration power and transmission facilities. (2) Proceeds.--The Western Area Power Administration shall apply the proceeds from the use of the transmission capacity from an individual project under this section to the repayment of the principal and interest of the loan from the Treasury attributable to that project, after reserving such funds as the Western Area Power Administration determines are necessary-- (A) to pay for any ancillary services that are provided; and (B) to meet the costs of operating and maintaining the new project from which the revenues are derived. (3) Source of revenue.--Revenue from the use of projects under this section shall be the only source of revenue for-- (A) repayment of the associated loan for the project; and (B) payment of expenses for ancillary services and operation and maintenance. (4) Limitation on authority.--Nothing in this section confers on the Administrator any additional authority or obligation to provide ancillary services to users of transmission facilities developed under this section. (5) Treatment of certain revenues.--Revenue from ancillary services provided by existing Federal power systems to users of transmission projects funded pursuant to this section shall be treated as revenue to the existing power system that provided the ancillary services. (d) Certification.-- (1) In general.--For each project in which the Western Area Power Administration participates pursuant to this section, the Administrator shall certify, prior to committing funds for any such project, that-- (A) the project is in the public interest; (B) the project will not adversely impact system reliability or operations, or other statutory obligations; and (C) it is reasonable to expect that the proceeds from the project shall be adequate to make repayment of the loan. (2) Forgiveness of balances.-- (A) In general.--If, at the end of the useful life of a project, there is a remaining balance owed to the Treasury under this section, the balance shall be forgiven. (B) Unconstructed projects.--Funds expended to study projects that are considered pursuant to this section but that are not constructed shall be forgiven. (C) Notification.--The Administrator shall notify the Secretary of such amounts as are to be forgiven under this paragraph. (e) Public Processes.-- (1) Policies and practices.--Prior to requesting any loans under this section, the Administrator shall use a public process to develop practices and policies that implement the authority granted by this section. (2) Requests for interest.--In the course of selecting potential projects to be funded under this section, the Administrator shall seek Requests For Interest from entities interested in identifying potential projects through one or more notices published in the Federal Register. History: Created by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1586/6 (Power=2) Definition and Continuity of Entities If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same entity. A document-defined entity's name CANNOT be changed to be the same as another document-defined entity's name. A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity that had that name when the document first came to include that reference, even if the entity's name has since changed. If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its properties cease to exist. If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they still define that entity but with different properties, then that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definitions. [CFJ 1807 (called 25 November 2007): Rule-defined entities include pending timed events, which can therefore occur under modified rules even if the events that originally triggered them would not trigger them under the new rules.] History: Created by Proposal 2481, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(1) by Proposal 2795 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3999 (harvel), May 2 2000 Amended(3) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5836 (Murphy), 12 October 2008 Amended(6) by cleaning, 26 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1688/4 (Power=3) [Rules] Power The power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. An instrument is an entity with positive power. The power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as stipulated by the rules. All entities have power zero except where specifically allowed by the rules. A rule that secures a change (hereafter the securing rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change except as allowed by an instrument with power greater than or equal to the change's power threshold. This threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that rule. History: Created by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2140/0 (Power=3) [Rules] Power Controls Mutability No entity with power below the power of this rule can (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own. (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its own. (c) modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's operation. History: Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2186/4 (Power=2) Victory Winning Conditions and Losing Conditions are conditions defined as such by the rules. Defining these things is secured, lest a coalition of players grant itself a boring win via proposal. A win announcement is a correct announcement explicitly labeled as a win announcement. When one or more persons satisfy at least one Winning Condition and do not satisfy any Losing Conditions, all such persons win the game. The game CANNOT be won in any other way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Each Winning Condition should (if needed) specify a cleanup procedure to prevent an arbitrary number of wins arising from essentially the same conditions. When one or more persons win the game, for each Winning Condition satisfied by at least one of those persons, its cleanup procedure occurs. While a player is the only active first-class player not to satisfy at least one Losing Condition, e satisfies the Winning Condition of Solitude. Cleanup procedure: The same person cannot satisfy this Winning Condition again until at least one other player ceases to satisfy any Losing Condition. [Cross-references (9 January 2008): list of Winning Conditions: * Clout (rule 2134) * Dictatorship (rule 2223) * High Score (rule 2187) * Legislation (rule 2188) * Musicianship (rule 2126) * Paradox (rule 2110) * Renaissance (rule 2199) * Solitude (rule 2186)] History: Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5792 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6052 (Murphy), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2110/5 (Power=2) Win by Paradox A tortoise is an inquiry case on the possibility or legality of a rule-defined action (actual or hypothetical, but not arising from that case itself, and not occurring after the initiation of that case) for which the question of veracity is UNDECIDABLE. Upon a win announcement that a tortoise has continuously been a tortoise for no greater than four and no less than two weeks, the initiator satisfies the Winning Condition of Paradox. Cleanup procedure: Each winner satisfying this Winning Condition SHALL, as soon as possible, make a reasonable attempt to resolve the paradox. The same person can not satisfy this Winning Condition again for the same tortoise or for any other tortoise that was linked to it in assignment. History: Created by Proposal 4781 (Sherlock), 3 June 2005 Amended(1) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5195 (Zefram), 6 September 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5297 (Murphy), 22 November 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5451 (root, Murphy, Zefram), 1 March 2008 Power changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2199/3 (Power=2) [Finance] Ribbons Ribbons are a class of fixed assets. If winning is secured, then changes to Ribbon holdings are secured with the same power threshold. Ownership of Ribbons is restricted to players. Each Ribbon has exactly one color. Colors with different names are distinct, regardless of spectral proximity. Each color of Ribbon is a currency. The Tailor is a low-priority office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons. Ribbons are gained as follows, unless the player already possesses the color of Ribbon to be gained: (+R) When an interested proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer gains a Red Ribbon. (+O) When an interested proposal is adopted by voting with no valid votes AGAINST, its proposer gains an Orange Ribbon. (+G) At the end of each month, each player who held at least one office continuously during that month gains a Green Ribbon, unless e failed to perform an official duty within a time limit during that month. (+C) When a player deputises for an office, e gains a Cyan Ribbon. (+B) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question other than a question on sentencing, e gains a Blue Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit. (+K) When a player assigns a judgement to a judicial question on sentencing, e gains a Black Ribbon, unless e violated a requirement to submit that judgement within a time limit. (+W) When a first-class person becomes a player for the first time, e gains a White Ribbon. When a first-class person has been a player continuously for at least three months, was never a player before that period, and names another player as eir mentor (and has not named a mentor in this fashion before), that player gains a White Ribbon. (+M) When, during Agora's birthday, a player publicly acknowledges the occasion, e gains a Magenta Ribbon. (+U) When a player is awarded the Patent Title Champion, e gains an Ultraviolet Ribbon. (+V) When a player is awarded a Patent Title, e gains a Violet Ribbon, unless e gains a different Ribbon for the award. (+I) When a player is awarded a degree, e gains an Indigo Ribbon. (+Y) At the end of each month, for each contest that awarded points to at least three different contestants during that month, the contestmaster gains a Yellow Ribbon. If this rule mentions at least six different specific colors for Ribbons, then a player CAN destroy one Ribbon of each such color in eir possession to satisfy the Winning Condition of Renaissance. [Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Tailor's duties are: * recordkeepor of ribbons (rule 2199)] [Note (30 August 2007): here is a set of colors with convenient abbreviating letters, suggested for future inventions of new types of ribbon: Amber, Blue, Cyan, Denim, Emerald, Fern, Green, Heliotrope, Indigo, Jade, blacK, Lime, Magenta, iNfrared, Orange, Pink, aQuamarine, Red, Silver, Turquoise, Ultraviolet, Violet, White, flaX, Yellow, Zinnwaldite.] History: Created by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6008 (PNP), 10 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2019/20 (Power=2) Prerogatives In a timely fashion before the beginning of each month, the Speaker SHALL assign each Player who bears the patent title Minister Without Portfolio a different Prerogative for the upcoming month by announcement. If there are more members in one set than the other, then e SHALL choose which members of the larger set take part in the assignment. The following Prerogatives are defined: a) Default Officeholder. The Default Officeholder CAN become holder of a vacant elected office by announcement, unless e is prevented from holding that office on an ongoing basis. b) Justiciar. Once within three days after an appeal case comes to require a judge, the Justiciar CAN make that case either hot or cold by announcement. If the Justiciar has not done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL NOT assign a panel to that case during this period, unless either no panels eligible to be so assigned include the Justiciar, or all of them do. If the Justiciar has done so, then the Clerk of the Courts SHALL assign a panel including (if the case is hot) or excluding (if it is cold) the Justiciar, if possible. c) Wielder of Veto. The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1. d) Wielder of Rubberstamp. The Wielder of Rubberstamp CAN rubberstamp an ordinary decision in its voting period by announcement; this decreases its quorum to 3, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be otherwise (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties toward odd integers), rules to the contrary notwithstanding. [CFJ 1870 (called 15 January 2008): A prerogative assigned for a particular month is lost at the end of that month.] History: Created by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002 Amended(1) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(2) by Proposal 4717 (Murphy), 25 April 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(4) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005 Amended(5) by Proposal 4840 (Goethe), 27 October 2005 Amended(6) by Proposal 4885 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5049 (Zefram), 1 July 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5138 (Zefram; disi.), 17 August 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5432 (Goethe), 9 February 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 5461 (Wooble), 13 March 2008 Amended(16) by Proposal 5606 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(17) by Proposal 5644 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(18) by Proposal 5693 (Goethe), 20 September 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5781 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 104/0 (Power=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. [CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael Norrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present time.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Rules A category concerning the rules of the game, including the processes of changing the rules. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2141/3 (Power=3) Role and Attributes of Rules A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally. A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. In particular, a rule may define in-game entities and regulate their behaviour, make instantaneous changes to the state of in-game entities, prescribe or proscribe certain player behaviour, modify the rules or the application thereof, or do any of these things in a conditional manner. Every rule has power between one and four inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range. Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor, and are strictly ordered. 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. Every rule is assigned to a number of committees (possibly zero). For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments, the text, power, ID number, title, and committee assignments (if any) of a rule are all substantive aspects of the rule. [CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule's title is not strictly a name for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the uniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.] History: Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 217/6 (Power=3) Interpreting the Rules When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. [CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need not necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in past CFJs.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995 Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1482/2 (Power=3) Precedence between Rules with Unequal Power In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Power. No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to stipulate any other means of determining precedence between Rules of unequal Power. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a change to the Ruleset. [CFJ 1103 (called 18 August 1998): In the case of conflict between Rules of unequal Power, the higher Powered Rule cannot defer to the lower Powered Rule, unless the higher Powered Rule takes precedence over Rule 1482.] [CFJ 858 (called 15 February 1996): If a low-Power [low-MI at the time of Judgement of CFJ 858] Rule attempts to define a term used in a Rule of higher Power to mean something other than its ordinary English meaning, that may or may not constitute a conflict; whether it does must be decided on a case-by-case basis.] History: Created by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 Infected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 4942 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1030/6 (Power=3) Precedence between Rules with Equal Power If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. [CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.] [CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 105/3 (Power=3) [Rules] Rule Changes Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect, (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void. (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. (c) amend the text of a rule. (d) retitle a rule. (e) change the power of a rule. A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. [CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a low-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under certain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by this process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is categorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different from the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.] [CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule Change.] [CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change.] [CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.", where XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule changes.] [CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.", this constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend the same rule.] [CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes.] [CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though it is specified in two parts.] [CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though it is specified in two parts.] [CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single rule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but the other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.] History: Created by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Renumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Retitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1681/16 (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, committee assignments (if any), title, and text. The Rulekeepor is strongly encouraged not to include any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR. 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 is also free to include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR. Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record a historical annotation to the rule indicating: a) The type of change. b) The date on which the change took effect. c) The mechanism that specified the change. d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any). History: Created by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005 Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1051/18 (Power=1) The Rulekeepor The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of the rules of Agora. The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset. [Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Rulekeepor's duties are: * manage ID numbers of rules (rule 2141) * assign title to rule (rule 2141) * report ruleset in two formats (rule 1051) * manage Logical Ruleset categories (rule 1681) * annotate the Full Logical Ruleset (rule 1681) * maintain historical rule annotations (rule 1681)] History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996 Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial Infected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial (unattributed) Amended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial Amended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998 Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999 Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999 Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2221/0 (Power=3) Cleanliness The Rulekeepor CAN clean a rule without objection by specifying one or more spelling and/or grammar corrections; the rule is amended as specified. History: Created by Proposal 5975 (Murphy), 25 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2216/0 (Power=1) The Repeal-o-Matic The Anarchist is an office; its holder is responsible for proposing the repeal of rules. The Anarchist's weekly duties include the performance of the following tasks, in order: a) Randomly select exactly five distinct rules. b) For one to three of these rules, submit a proposal, with adoption index equal to the Power of the rule, and interest index 0, to repeal the rule. [Cross-references (28 October 2008): the Anarchist's duties are: * propose repeal of rules (rule 2216)] History: Created by Proposal 5794 (Murphy, Swann), 26 October 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1750/2 (Power=1) Read the Ruleset Week The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February is known as Read the Ruleset Week. During this time, Agorans SHOULD read the ruleset. History: Created by Proposal 3601 (Chuck), Dec. 9 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 4398 (harvel), 23 October 2002 Amended(2) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2223/0 (Power=2) Win by Junta When a rule comes to state that one or more persons CAN cause it to make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Dictatorship. Cleanup procedure: Those persons SHALL as soon as possible amend the rule so that it no longer states this, and SHOULD amend the rules to prevent this condition from being achieved again in essentially the same way. History: Created by Proposal 5982 (Murphy), 29 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Players A category concerning players, including the processes of becoming and ceasing to be players, and game-relevant aspects of players. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 869/27 (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 register by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. A second-class person CAN register with Agoran Consent. A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement. [CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.] [CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner stipulated by the rules.] History: Created by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998 Amended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003 Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003 Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003 Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005 Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005 Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2174/0 (Power=1) Aliens An alien is a non-player who is a member of the basis of one or more contracts (hereafter eir visas). A resident alien is an alien with one or more registered visas. History: Created by Proposal 5274 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2170/5 (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, including but not limited to a name that has generally been used to refer to another entity within the past three months. 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, which SHOULD correspond 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. History: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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. [CFJ 1700 (called 10 July 2007): The requirement of capability to communicate by email can be satisfied even if the players of Agora do not know the organism's email address.] [CFJ 1685 (called 31 May 2007): Being in a mindless job (e.g., keyboard, stenographer, spokesman) may create a rebuttable presumption against personhood and against one having spoken on one's own behalf.] History: Created by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007 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 2145/6 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Partnerships A partnership is a contract that devolves each of its legal obligations onto at least one of its parties, but does not devolve all of them solely onto one of its parties. The members of a partnership are those parties onto whom the partnership's legal obligations are collectively devolved. A partnership's identity and partnershiphood are not disrupted by changes to its membership provided that it continues to meet the definition of a partnership. A partnership's basis is the set consisting of the union of the the bases of each of its members. Where circularity occurs in this definition, it is resolved by using the minimum basis sets that provide consistency. A partnership that is a public contract and whose basis contains at least two persons is a person. If a judge finds a partnership guilty in a criminal proceedings, e may sentence one or more members of the partnership for the crime rather than the partnership itself. To be an appropriate sentence in this case, the judge SHOULD use the text of the partnership as a guide to the devolution of sentencing but is not bound to follow the text if it is unclear on the subject or would not adequately apply responsibility. [CFJ 1701 (called 11 July 2007): To qualify as a member of a partnership it is not necessary to be responsible for all of the partnership's obligations.] [CFJ 1864 (called 12 January 2008): The devolution of a partnership's legal obligations onto its members may be achieved by means of a contract other than the partnership.] [CFJ 1750 (called 24 September 2007): Partnerships can have non-player members and nothing in the rules causes a member to cease being so due to deregistration.] [CFJ 1855 (called 29 December 2007): A person who is not a party to a partnership contract cannot have obligations placed on em by that contract, and so cannot be a member of the partnership.] History: Created by Proposal 4977 (BobTHJ), 31 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5041 (BobTHJ), 28 June 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5303 (root), 24 November 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5381 (Goethe), 1 January 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5776 (Goethe), 17 October 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2144/8 (Power=1) Limited Partnerships A partnership SHALL NOT register if its basis is the same as that of any player. Whenever a judgement of GUILTY is assigned in a criminal case alleging that a partnership has violated this rule, the judge SHOULD assign an EXILE judgement to the question on sentencing in that case. If a registered partnership has the same basis as another player, any player CAN deregister it with Agoran Consent. History: Created by Proposal 4971 (Human Point Two), 23 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5022 (Murphy), 25 June 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5039 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5045 (BobTHJ), 1 July 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5061 (Zefram), 9 July 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5375 (root), 1 January 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5400 (woggle; disi.), 16 January 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2139/1 (Power=1) The Registrar The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of players. The Registrar's report includes, for each player: a) Information sufficient to identify and contact em. b) The date on which e most recently became a player. [CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname by announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current nickname of another player.] [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname, previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or nickname.] [CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined element of the game.] [CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily published with the registrar's report, is part of the game state, even though it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track or publish it.] [Cross-references (13 February 2008): the Registrar's duties are: * report senators (rule 2177) * track citizenship (rule 869) * report players' identity and contact details (rule 2139) * report registration dates (rule 2139) * report deregistration by Writ of FAGE (rule 1789) * track player activity and report change dates (rule 2130) * track forum publicity (rule 478) * report fora (rule 478) * change the publicity of a forum (rule 478) * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922)] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1789/5 (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, as long as the Player remains deregistered. The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. A player who has deregistered in a Writ of FAGE may not register within thirty days of eir deregistration, other rules to the contrary notwithstanding. [CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due to this rule even if there is no Registrar.] History: Created by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998 Amended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001 Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2130/9 (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. A player CAN flip eir activity by announcement. "To go on hold" is to become Inactive; "to come off hold" is to become Active. A player CAN flip another player's activity to Inactive without objection. A player who has been continuously Inactive for at least three months CAN be deregistered by any other player without objection. History: Created by Proposal 4893 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4966 (Zefram), 3 June 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4967 (Zefram), 3 June 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 4985 (Zefram), 6 June 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 4986 (Zefram), 6 June 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5004 (Zefram), 13 June 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5116 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5258 (AFO), 18 October 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2177/9 (Power=2) The Senate A Senator is any first-class player who has been registered continuously for the immediately preceding sixty days. The set of all Senators is known as the Senate. The Registrar's report includes a list of all Senators. A Senator CAN call an Emergency Session with 2 Senator supporters, provided no other emergency session existed at any time in the preceding 48 hours. An emergency session lasts until it is terminated. An unterminated emergency session terminates 21 days after it was called. A Senator CAN terminate an emergency session without 3 Senator objections. Terminating an emergency session is a secured change. The Assessor's report includes the dates when the most recent emergency session was called and terminated. The roll call of an emergency session is the set of senators at the time the emergency session was called. During emergency session, the previous definition of senator does not apply; instead, a senator is a first-class player who is a member of the roll call. The Assessor's report includes the roll call of the most recent emergency session. During emergency session, any Senator CAN declare a filibuster on a proposal in its voting period, with 2 supporting Senators, provided no filibuster has been declared on that proposal in the past. Any Senator CAN end a filibuster on a proposal with 4 supporting Senators. While a proposal is in filibuster, its quorum is the number of eligible voters plus one, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. When an emergency session begins, all non-Senators' postures become supine, and non-Senators CANNOT flip their posture while the session lasts. History: Created by Proposal 5309 (Goethe), 24 November 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5331 (root), 5 December 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5332 (root), 5 December 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5333 (root), 5 December 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5357 (root; disi.), 16 December 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5944 (Taral, ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5945 (root), 15 November 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2215/0 (Power=1) Truthfulness A person SHALL NOT make a public statement on a matter relevant to the rules that is intended to mislead others as to its truth (or, in the case of a public statement that one performs an action, its effectiveness). For the purpose of this rule: a) Merely quoting a statement does not constitute making that statement. b) Any conditional clause or other qualifier attached to a statement constitutes part of the statement; the nature of the whole is what is significant. [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.] History: Created by Proposal 5789 (Murphy, Zefram, Michael, Goethe), 22 October 2008 Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2228/2 (Power=2) [Crime] Rests Rests are a fixed asset. The creation and destruction of Rests is secured with a power threshold of 1.7, a person generally CANNOT destroy rests except as permitted by Rules explicitly stating methods by which rests in particular CAN be destroyed. The Insulator is an office, and the recordkeepor of Rests. Ownership of Rests is restricted to first-class persons. If, in the absence of this restriction, a number (N) of Rests would be created in the ownership of a non-first-class person, then for each member of that person's basis, N Rests are created in that member's possession. A player CAN spend two Notes in order to destroy a Rest owned by a player e specifies. A first-class player CAN create Rests in eir own possession by announcement. History: Created by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(1) by Proposal 6060 (Wooble, comex, Goethe), 4 February 2009 Amended(2) by Proposal 6066 (comex, Goethe; disi.), 4 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2229/0 (Power=2) [Crime] Just Resting Owning one or more Rests is a Losing Condition. While a person owns at least 8 Rests, that person CANNOT spend Notes except to destroy Rests e owns. This takes precedence over any other rule. While a player owns at least 24 Rests, that player CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement. A person who owns at least 6 Rests, or where every member of eir basis owns 6 Rests, CANNOT register, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. A person who has one or more rests but is not a player is a Fugitive. The Herald's report shall include a list of all Fugitives and the number of Rests they possess. At the beginning of each month, half of each Fugitive's rests (rounded down) are destroyed. History: Created by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Definitions A category of definitions of terms and procedures that are widely used and do not readily fall into any other category. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 754/9 (Power=3) Definition Definitions Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved: (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning when used in any Rule of equal or lesser power, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. The following clauses, where X and Y are both nouns or noun phrases, SHOULD be interpreted as "X is/are defined as Y": 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, followed by definitions used in contracts or other Agoran legal documents, SHOULD be used for guidance. This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar. [CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language qualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game actions by messages in languages other than English.] [CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other than English, and its intended audience does not understand the language, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message ineffective.] [CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.] [CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player's legal name (legal in eir country of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to em.] [CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name of an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a person, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.] [CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring extensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient degree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.] [CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been explicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not implicitly defined by the context in which it is used.] [CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a message, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers, can render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding step requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.] [CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including numerical character entity encoding) does not render a message ineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a header.] [CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need the RFC-required "MIME-Version:" header in order for it to be interpreted in the MIME way.] [CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase "AOL!" is not a sufficiently clear synonym for "Me too!".] [CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a rule-defined term in its own way, and the contract's definition will then apply in situations governed by the contract.] [CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a meaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does not unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a meaning.] [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.] History: Created by Proposal 435 (Alexx), Aug. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), Dec. 1 1993 Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 1 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Dec. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5834 (Goethe), 12 November 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 6021 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2152/4 (Power=3) Mother, May I? The following terms are defined. These definitions are used when a rule includes a term in all caps, and SHOULD be used when a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more 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 rule in question. 6. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question. 7. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should be understood and carefully weighed. History: Created by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1023/24 (Power=2) Common Definitions The following terms are defined: (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" mean "within seven days". (b) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. History: Created by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994 Amended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994 Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996 Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996 Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996 Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000 Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002 Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 6046 (comex), 13 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1769/7 (Power=3) Holidays A Holiday is a period of time designated as such by the Rules. During a Holiday, the Promotor SHALL NOT distribute any proposals, and judges SHALL NOT be assigned to any judicial case, and judges SHALL NOT assign judgement to any judicial question. If some Rule requires that an action be done prior to a given time, and that given time falls during a Holiday, or within the 72-hour period immediately following that Holiday, then that action need not be done until 72 hours after that Holiday ends. If some Rule bases the time of a future event (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, 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. The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24 December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin after 2 January is a Holiday. [CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.] [CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined period is an event for the purposes of rule 1769.] [CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to occur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at its specified time even if that is during a holiday.] History: Created by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998 Amended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2161/4 (Power=1) ID Numbers If a rule defines a type of entity as having ID numbers, then: (a) Whenever an instance of that type does not have an ID number, the player held responsible by that rule SHALL assign an ID number to it by announcement as soon as possible. (b) Such an assignment is INVALID unless the number is a natural number (expressed as a decimal literal with at most 14 digits) distinct from any ID number previously assigned to an entity of that type, and (if the type of entity is defined by the rules as strictly ordered) greater than any orderly ID number so assigned. The player SHOULD select the smallest number possible. (c) Each ID number is either orderly (default) or chaotic. Upon a judicial finding that the assignment of an ID number was ILLEGAL, the ID number becomes chaotic. (d) Once assigned, an ID number cannot be changed. (e) If an office is responsible for assigning ID numbers, then that officer's report includes the greatest orderly ID number, and a list of all chaotic ID numbers, previously assigned to the type of entity. (f) If an instance of that type has an ID number, then its name is the combination of its type and ID number. Otherwise, it has no name. History: Created by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5723 (Murphy), 7 October 2008 Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2153/2 (Power=1) Interest Index An entity's interest index is an integer from 0 to 3, default value 1. An entity's interest index SHOULD be proportional to its complexity. "Disinterested" is a synonym for "interest index 0". History: Created by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2146/1 (Power=2) Indices Indices are elements of the extended real numbers, which is a total order consisting of the real numbers plus a minimum element, called negative infinity, and a maximum element, called positive infinity or unanimity. The ratio of a positive index to zero is positive infinity. The ratio of a negative index to zero is negative infinity. The ratio of zero to any index is zero. History: Created by Proposal 4979 (Zefram, Maud), 31 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2162/1 (Power=2) Switches A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and specify the following: a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No other entity possesses an instance of that switch. b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for instances of that switch. c) Exactly one officer who tracks instances of that switch. That officer's report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value. At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to X. History: Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 478/27 (Power=3) Fora Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A 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. 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. [CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into multiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game purposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the single message.] [CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.] [CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.] [CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.] [CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is "received" when the message enters the recipient's normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).] [CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text 'with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.] [CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum is rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been sent via a public forum.] [CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message has not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to receive messages via the forum receive it.] [CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion Forum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not qualify as sending it to all players.] [CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in the message body; the subject line is insignificant.] [CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading subject line does not deprive the message body of effect.] [CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the message body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not have such an effect if it appears in the subject line.] [CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is a different action from publishing the whole message.] [CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of "publishing" or "announcing" is accomplished when the message has left the sender's technical domain of control, indicated by one of the "Received:" headers.] [CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature can't directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its members sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement says so.] [CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have public messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that allows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific approval.] [CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by contractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by announcement on eir behalf.] [CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual arrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement on behalf of another.] [CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one wishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can constitute an announcement that performs that action.] [CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed by announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case that would result from that action does not constitute performing the action.] [CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007): Saying "I do X 1000 times", where X is something that can be done by announcement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of "I do X", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count, because it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances of "I do X".] [CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying "I do X 10000 times", where X is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily achieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of "I do X" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is abusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being successful.] [CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form "I do X N times" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of "I do X", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have the effect of M instances of "I do X" for any non-zero repeat count M.] [CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will accomplish an action even if its author believed the action was impossible.] [CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be retroactive.] History: Created by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995 Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial Amended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial Amended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002 Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(26) by proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1728/23 (Power=3) Dependent Actions A person (the performer) CAN perform an action dependently (a dependent action) by announcement if and only if all of the following are true: a) The rules explicitly authorize the performer to perform the action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 if not otherwise specified): 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer. 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1. b) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N for each method), at most fourteen days earlier, and (if the action depends on objections) at least four days earlier. c) 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. d) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules. A dependent action CAN be performed non-dependently as otherwise permitted by the rules. A person CAN perform a dependent action authorized by a contract as if that contract were a rule, provided that the above requirements are otherwise met, and that the effects of that action are restricted to altering entities and/or attributes whose existence depends on that contract. [CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need not be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description suffices, as does the rule-defined term.] [CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase "by Agoran Support" is not an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.] History: Created by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000 Amended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001 Amended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003 Amended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 6041 (Murphy, Warrigal), 13 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2124/10 (Power=2) Agoran Satisfaction A Supporter of a dependent action is a first-class player who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is a first-class player (or other person explicitly allowed to object to that action by the rule allowing that action to be performed dependently) who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action. The Executor of such an announcement of intent CANNOT support it, but CAN generally object to it (withdrawal of intent is equivalent to objection). A rule authorizing the performance of a dependent action may further restrict the eligibility of players to support or object to that specific action. 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. For the purposes of any determination defined by this rule, objections shall always be considered withdrawn if they were made prior to the announcement of intent to perform the action. History: Created by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 6027 (Elysion), 8 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2166/9 (Power=2) [Finance] Assets An asset is an entity defined as such by a rule or contract (hereafter its backing document), and existing solely because its backing document defines its existence. 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 destroyed if it is owned by an entity outside that class (except for the Lost and Found Department, in which case any player CAN transfer or destroy it without objection). 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" 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. A public class of assets is a class of assets whose backing document is a rule or a public contract. All others are private. [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.] History: Created by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5216 (Murphy), 13 September 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5388 (Murphy), 1 January 2008 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2181/7 (Power=1) [Finance] The Accountor The Accountor is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of classes of assets. The Accountor's report includes a list of all public classes of assets and their backing documents and recordkeepors. [Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Accountor's duties are: * report classes of assets (rule 2181)] History: Created by Proposal 5363 (Murphy; disi.), 20 December 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5482 (Murphy), 2 April 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5508 (Murphy), 28 May 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5527 (Murphy), 2 June 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5598 (Wooble; disi.), 29 June 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5600 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5833 (Murphy, Taral), 12 November 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5840 (root), 12 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Offices A category concerning administrative positions held by persons within the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1006/27 (Power=2) [Administration] 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. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. [CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning of the term "office", in the sense meant by rule 754, but rather references the usual English definition of "office" and governs offices as thus defined.] [CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to an officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is vacant at the time.] History: Created by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993 Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993 Amended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2143/4 (Power=1) [Administration] Official Reports and Duties For each office: a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office's weekly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office's weekly report, then the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office's weekly duties. b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that office's monthly duties, then the holder of that office SHALL perform it at least once each month. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that office's monthly report, then the holder of that office SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of that office's monthly duties. Any information defined by the rules as part of an office's report, without specifying which one, is part of its weekly report (unless the office is defined by the rules as low-priority, in which case it is part of its monthly report). History: Created by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2227/0 (Power=1) Interest Index of Offices Each office has an interest index. A player CAN flip an office's interest index to any value without objection, or without 2 objections if e holds the office. History: Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2160/3 (Power=3) [Administration] Deputisation Any player (a deputy) CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office (deputise for that office) if: (a) the rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action (or, if the office is vacant, would so require if the office were filled); and (b) a time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired; and (c) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action; and (d) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office. [CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an action, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication from rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules.] History: Created by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2154/20 (Power=2) [Administration] Election Procedure Any player CAN by announcement initiate an election for an elected office for which no election is already in progress, nominating at least one active player. 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 (hereafter the candidates) are the active players 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, and c) are Senators if there is currently an Emergency Session. The set of candidates can change after the decision is initiated. 2) If there is no Emergency Session at the time the decision is initiated, the eligible voters are the active players. Otherwise, the eligible voters are the active Senators. 3) Each eligible voter's voting limit is one. An ordered list of multiple choices constitutes a conditional vote for the first choice if it could be the outcome, otherwise the second choice if it could be the outcome, and so forth. Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome (if a candidate) is installed into the office, and the election ends. History: Created by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008 Amended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008 Amended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008 Amended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008 Amended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2217/1 (Power=2) [Administration] Periodic Elections Stability is an elected office switch, tracked by the IADoP, with values Temporal (default) and Perpetual. Any player CAN flip an elected office's stability without 2 objections. A Perpetual office becomes Temporal when its holder leaves office. The IADoP SHALL initiate an election for an elected office under the following circumstances: a) During a quarter, if the office was Temporal at the start of that quarter and no such attempt was made during the previous quarter. b) Within a week (or month, if the office is low-priority) after the office ceases to have (or is created without) an active holder, or after an election for the office ends and the office still lacks an active holder. This requirement is waived if the office comes to have an active holder. These requirements are also waived if another player initiates an election for the office. History: Created by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2138/5 (Power=1) [Administration] The International Associate Director of Personnel The International Associate Director of Personnel is an low-priority office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers and reports. The IADoP's report includes the following: a) The holder of each office. b) The date on which each holder last came to hold that office. c) The date when the most recent nomination period for that office began. The portion of a public message purporting to be an IADoP's report that lists the holder of each office is self-ratifying. [CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The International 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) * track stability of elected offices (rule 2217) * attempt to change officeholders quarterly (rule 2217) * report officeholding (rule 2138) * award long service patent titles (rule 1922)] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1551/12 (Power=3) Ratification A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. When a public document is ratified, the gamestate is modified so that the ratified document was completely true and accurate at the time it was published. Nevertheless, the ratification of a public document does not invalidate, reverse, alter, or cancel any messages or actions, even if they were unrecorded or overlooked, or change the legality of any attempted action. Ratifying a public document is secured. History: Created by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2202/1 (Power=3) Ratification Without Objection An official document is a public document purported to be part (possibly all) of an official report; this part is the document's scope. Any player CAN, without objection, ratify an official document, specifying its scope. The date of this ratification and the scope of the ratified document become part of the official report in question, until the same scope is ratified at a later date. Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal, amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. [CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official document affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to be part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally reported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on certain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list of players.] History: Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 6048 (Wooble), 13 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2201/0 (Power=3) Self-Ratification Any public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified one week after its publication, unless explicitly and publicly challenged during that period via one of the following methods, explaining the scope and nature of the perceived error: a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal interpretation. b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The publisher of the original document SHALL respond to a claim of error as soon as possible, either publishing a revision or denying the claim. If e denies the claim, then the original document is ratified one week after the denial, unless it is challenged again (subject to the same requirements) during that period. [CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying document [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran decision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually or as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some aspect of it.] [CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of a self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.] History: Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Agoran Decisions A category concerning the means by which this nomic makes collective decisions. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 693/9 (Power=3) [Rules] Agoran Decisions When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the decision-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere: (a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision. History: Initial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995 Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998 Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 107/10 (Power=3) [Rules] 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. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision with at least two options cannot be shorter than seven days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN end the voting period by announcement, provided that e resolves the decision in the same message. [CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and the information required in the notice need not be explicit.] [CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention voter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the rule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines the class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly describes the class of eligible voters.] [CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly presented in the notice takes precedence over any information that would be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate and the implicit information would have been accurate.] [CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible.] [CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran decision can change during its voting period.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 683/14 (Power=3) [Rules] Voting on Agoran Decisions An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission. (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period. Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the entity's voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is one, except where rules say otherwise. The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option. Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the constraints specified by this rule. [CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To "clearly identif[y] the matter to be decided" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.] [CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more votes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the making of a false statement.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998 Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999 Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001 Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2196/1 (Power=3) Standard Classes of Agoran Decisions An Agoran decision with an adoption index is either ordinary or democratic. An Agoran decision with an adoption index greater than or equal to 2 is democratic. Any other Agoran decision with an adoption index is ordinary by default. If an Agoran decision has an adoption index, then the following are essential parameters: a) Its adoption index. b) Whether it is ordinary or democratic. For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT. History: Created by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2127/3 (Power=1) Conditional Votes A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the end of the voting period. The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity or paradox, from information reasonably available within the voting period. 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; PRESENT is its own opposite. History: Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2222/0 (Power=2) Maximum Voting Limits Other rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no entity may have greater a voting limit than as allowed by this rule. The maximum voting limit for any entity on an ordinary decision is 8. The maximum voting limit for any entity on any other decision is 1. History: Created by Proposal 5978 (Elysion), 25 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2168/1 (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 doubled, provided this has not already happened for the decision in question. Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision SHOULD issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible. History: Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 208/7 (Power=3) [Rules] 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 which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, 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. [CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice refers via a References: header to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give revised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.] [CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice refers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give revised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.] [CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice includes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice invalid.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 955/15 (Power=3) [Rules] Determining the Will of Agora The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows. (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (b) If the decision has an adoption index, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. (c) If the decision is for an election, then the outcome is the candidate with the most votes. In case of a tie, the vote collector SHALL select one of the leaders as the outcome. If there are no candidates, then the outcome is null. [CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is determined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations described in rule 955.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993 Amended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993 Amended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993 Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993 Amended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998 Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998 Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002 Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002 Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 879/27 (Power=2) Quorum Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N). [CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not count towards quorum.] [CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision changes as the set of eligible voters changes.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995 Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998 Amended(8) by Proposal "A Separation of Powers" (Steve, Without Objection), Apr. 20 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000 Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000 Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000 Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002 Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002 Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002 Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002 Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005 Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007 Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2034/4 (Power=3) Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges Any proposal that would otherwise change the validity of any existing vote on any specific unresolved Agoran decision is wholly without effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent amendment of the rules governing the validity of votes on Agoran decisions in general. Once an Agoran decision has been resolved, votes on it CANNOT be validly submitted or retracted, and its outcome CANNOT be changed in any way, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. This does not prevent correcting errors in reporting its resolution. A public document purporting to resolve an Agoran decision is self-ratifying. History: Created by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002 Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Proposals A category concerning the primary and plenipotent system by which changes are made to the game. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 106/16 (Power=3) [Rules] Adopting Proposals A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the player who submitted it. The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A player specifically permitted by the Rules to distribute a Proposal CAN distribute the proposal by publishing it with the clear intent of distributing it. When a proposal is distributed, it is removed from the Proposal Pool. The distribution of a proposal initiates the Agoran decision of whether to adopt the proposal, as described elsewhere. Removing a proposal from the Pool by a means other than initiating an Agoran Decision to adopt it is secured. If the Rules do not otherwise permit at least one current active player to distribute a Proposal, then any player may do so Without 3 Objections. A co-author of a proposal is a person (other than its author) unambiguously identified as such by its author when it was submitted. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. [CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with the heading "Proposal:" and a title can be sufficient to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it can be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.] [CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with the question "What is the title of this proposal?" can be sufficient to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.] [CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of "AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former private usage with the latter meaning.] [CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two separate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the attempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the possible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly requires a different resolution.] [CFJ 1781 (called 4 November 2007): Proposal distribution is not governed by this rule, so for the promotor to distribute a proposal that is not in the proposal pool is not a violation of this rule.] [CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to have retroactive effect.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007 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, 12 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2224/0 (Power=1) Interest Index of Proposals Each proposal has an interest index, which CAN be set by its author at the time of submission. A proposal SHOULD be disinterested if and only if its effects are limited to correcting errors and/or ambiguities. History: Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1607/19 (Power=2) [Rules] The Promotor The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals. The Promotor CAN and MAY distribute a proposal in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor's weekly duties include the distribution of each proposal that has been in the Proposal Pool since the beginning of that week. For an Agoran decision of whether to adopt a proposal, the following are essential parameters: a) Its author (and co-authors, if any). b) Its interest index. Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor. The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool. [CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.] [CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose text consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating matter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted proposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution of either of the submitted proposals.] [CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute a proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in the proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited) distribution of a new proposal.] [CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new proposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a proposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning to the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential differences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the proposal on which it is based.] [CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally creates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is seriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new proposal has no author.] [Cross-references (2 August 2007): the Promotor's duties are: * not distribute proposals during holiday (rule 1769) * distribute proposals (rule 1607) * manage ID numbers of distributed proposals (rule 1607) * report proposal pool (rule 1607)] History: Created by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996 Amended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996 Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1950/20 (Power=3) Voting on Democratic Decisions The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities that were active first-class players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic decision is one. History: Created by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000 Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 Amended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002 Amended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002 Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 Amended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003 Amended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004 Amended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005 Amended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2156/11 (Power=2) Voting on Ordinary Decisions Caste is a player switch, tracked by the Grand Poobah, with the following values and their numeric equivalents: Alpha - 8 Beta - 5 Gamma - 3 Delta - 2 Epsilon - 1 (default for active first-class players and provinces) Savage - 0 (default for all other players) Changes to caste are secured, lest a coalition of high-caste players grant itself a boring permanence. The eligible voters on an ordinary decision are those entities that were active players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is eir caste at the start of its voting period, reduced to the next lower caste (minimum Savage) for each positive multiple of 4 Rests that the voter posesses at the start of the voting period. History: Created by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5082 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5141 (Zefram), 19 August 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5358 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5447 (Pavitra), 24 February 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5679 (BobTHJ), 3 September 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5985 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2142/4 (Power=2) Support Democracy A player CAN, with 2 support, change an ordinary decision to be democratic. History: Created by Proposal 4955 (Zefram), 7 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5043 (root), 1 July 2007 Power changed from 1.1 to 2 by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5044 (root), 1 July 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5210 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2236/0 (Power=2) Committee Membership The following committees exist, with the following charter positions: a) Committee on Rules (Rulekeepor, Promotor, Assessor, Grand Poobah, Speaker, Anarchist) b) Committee on Administration (all high-priority officers) c) Committee on the Judiciary (Clerk of the Courts, all first-class players whose judicial rank is Supreme and whose posture is standing or sitting) d) Committee on Crime (Justiciar, all first-class players whose hawkishness is hanging and whose posture is standing or sitting) d) Committee on Finance (Accountor, all recordkeepors of rule-backed assets) e) Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship (Notary, all partnerships, Liaison of each subsidized contract) f) Committee on Indian Affairs (Scorekeepor, all contestmasters) g) Committee on Foreign Relations (Speaker, Ambassador, all Embassies) While an active player holds one or more charter positions for a committee, e is a charter member of that committee. When a charter member of a committee ceases to hold any charter positions for that committee, or ceases to be an active player, e ceases to be a member of that committee. While a committee's number of charter members (CM) is less than five, a non-member CAN spend any 5-CM of eir Notes forming consecutive tones of a pentatonic scale to become a non-charter member of that committee. While a committee's number of members is more than five, its non-charter member that has been one for the longest continuous period of time ceases to be a member. The IADoP's report includes the membership of each committee. History: Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2235/0 (Power=3) Committee Rejection If a proposal would amend (whether directly or indirectly) a rule assigned to a committee, and at least half the members of that committee (measured at the start of its voting period) who voted on that proposal cast more votes AGAINST it than FOR it, then it is entirely without effect, even if adopted. History: Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2137/2 (Power=1) [Rules] The Assessor The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related properties. [CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes hands, vote collection duties move with it.] [Cross-references (1 March 2008): the Assessor's duties are: * report date of most recent emergency session (rule 2177) * report roll call of most recent emergency session (rule 2177)] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1450/9 (Power=2) Separation of Powers Lest the entire proposal process fall under the control of a single entity, any change that would result in the same entity holding the offices of Promotor and Assessor simultaneously is canceled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Created by Proposal 1547, Apr. 14 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), May 8 1998 Amended(3) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(4) by Proposal 4592 (Murphy), 4 July 2004 Amended(5) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(6) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5106 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5602 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1698/1 (Power=3) Agora Is a Nomic In the interest of safeguarding Agora's nomic-ness, if a change to the gamestate would otherwise make it IMPOSSIBLE to make arbitrary rule changes and/or adopt arbitrary proposals within a four-week period by any combinations of actions by players, then that change is canceled and does not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997 Retitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2134/5 (Power=2) Win by Clout Upon a win announcement that a specified player's voting limit on an ordinary decision initiated at that time would exceed the combined voting limits of all other players on that decision, the specified player satisfies the Winning Condition of Clout. Cleanup procedure: Each player's caste is set to its default value, and no player satisfies this Winning Condition again (the remainder of this rule notwithstanding) during the same month. History: Created by Proposal 4930 (Goethe), 29 April 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5222 (root; disi.), 30 September 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5343 (Murphy), 8 December 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2211/2 (Power=2) The Grand Poobah The Grand Poobah is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of castes. The Grand Poobah CAN generally flip a Player's caste by announcement, but SHALL only do so as explicitly described by the Rules. If the result of a claim of error or court case finds that e has flipped a Player's caste illegally (e.g. not as specified by the Rules), e SHALL flip the caste to the appropriate correct value as soon as possible. If a player believes that a caste switch has been flipped illegally, e CAN switch it back with three Support, provided e has first raised a claim of error or court case concerning the matter. However e (and supporters) SHALL defer to the courts and the Grand Poobah's ability to correct the issue, unless they present a good and pressing reason not to do so; abuse of this ability should not be taken lightly by the courts. At the beginning of each month, each Alpha's caste is flipped to eir default value. As soon as possible after the beginning of each month, the Grand Poobah SHALL do the following, in order, at each step choosing (if possible) a player who has not yet been chosen during the current procedure: 1) Promotions. At each step, the Grand Poobah SHALL choose a player whose caste is as high as possible without equalling or exceeding the new caste: a) Flip a player's caste to Alpha b) Flip a player's caste to Beta c) Flip a player's caste to Gamma d) Flip a player's caste to Delta 2) Demotions. Each step is repeated as many times as needed. b->c) While there are more than two Betas, flip a Beta's caste to Gamma c->d) While there are more than three Gammas, flip a Gamma's caste to Delta d->e) While there are more than four Deltas, flip a Delta's caste to Epsilon During the seven days immediately prior to the start of a month, the Speaker CAN publish an Honors List, indicating a list of players other than emself for promotion. If such a list is published, the Grand Poobah SHALL, during the Promotions step above, make as many legal promotions from this list as possible before making any other promotions. History: Created by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5680 (Goethe), 3 September 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5696 (Goethe), 20 September 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2126/58 (Power=2) [Finance] Notes Notes are a class of fixed assets. Ownership of Notes is restricted to players. If changes to caste are secured, then changes to Notes are secured with the same power threshold. Each Note has exactly one pitch from the chromatic scale (ignoring octaves, and treating enharmonics as equivalent). Each pitch of Note is a currency. The Conductor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Notes. Key is a player switch, tracked by the Conductor, with values equal to the pitches that Notes can have, defaulting to C. A player CAN change eir Key to any value by announcement, unless e has already done so during the current month. Notes are gained as follows, except that the pitch actually gained is as many semitones higher than the pitch listed below as the player's Key is higher than C at the time of the gain: (1) At the end of each week, for each player, let X be the number of eir interested proposals that were adopted during that week, and let Y be the number of eir interested quorate proposals that were rejected during that week with VI >= AI/2: (F) If X > Y > 0, then e gains an F Note. (F#) If X > Y = 0, then e gains an F# Note. (G) If X = Y > 0, then e gains a G Note. (Ab) If Y > X = 0, then e gains an Ab Note. (A) If Y > X > 0, then e gains an A Note. (2) (E) At the end of each week, each player who completed the non-empty set of weekly duties of at least one office during that week gains a number of E Notes equal to the highest interest index among all such offices. (Eb) At the end of each month, each player who completed the non-empty set of monthly duties of at least one office during that month gains a number of Eb Notes equal to the highest interest index among all such offices. (3) (D) At the end of each week, each player who published at least one on-time judgement during that week gains a number of D Notes equal to the highest interest index among all such cases. (4) (C) At the end of each week, each player who gained at least one Point during that week gains a C Note. (C#) At the end of each week, each contestmaster who awarded at least one Point during that week gains a C# Note. (5) (B) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 2 that passed during that week gains a B note. (Bb) At the end of each week, each player who authored at least one proposal with an Interest Index of 3 that passed during that week gains a Bb note. Notes CAN be spent (destroyed) as follows: (1) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a major chord to increase another non-Alpha player's caste by 1 level. (2) A non-Alpha player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a major scale to increase eir own caste by 1 level. (3) A player CAN spend three Notes forming a minor chord to decrease another non-Savage player's caste by 1 level. (4) A non-Savage player CAN spend five Notes forming the start of a minor scale to decrease eir own caste by 1 level. (5) A player CAN spend two Notes of the same pitch to make another player gain one Note of that pitch. (6) During Agora's Birthday, a player CAN spend Notes forming the melody "Happy Birthday" (GGAGCB GGAGDC GGGECBA FFECDC or a translation thereof) to satisfy the Winning Condition of Musicianship, unless another player has already done so during that Birthday. (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player's voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1. (8) A player CAN spend two Notes to increase eir voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is in progress by 1. (9) A player CAN spend three Notes to gain a Note whose pitch is as many semitones distant from one of the Notes spent as the distance between the other two Notes spent. The maximum FINE amount for each pitch of note is 2. [CFJs 1826-1827 (called 6 December 2007): A decrease of VVLOD [VVLOP at the time of these CFJs] cannot be by a negative number.] [Cross-references (6 February 2008): the Conductor's duties are: * recordkeepor of notes (rule 2126)] History: Created by Proposal 4872 (OscarMeyr), 26 October 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 4884 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 4914 (OscarMeyr), 21 March 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 4943 (Goethe), 3 May 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 4950 (Zefram), 7 May 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 4961 (Zefram), 3 June 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5031 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5052 (Zefram), 5 July 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5056 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5058 (Zefram), 5 July 2007 Power changed from 3 to 2 by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 5097 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5114 (Zefram), 2 August 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5126 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5128 (Zefram, Murphy), 13 August 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5161 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5163 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5164 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5165 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5166 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5167 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(26) by Proposal 5168 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(27) by Proposal 5169 (Zefram, OscarMeyr, Pavitra), 29 August 2007 Amended(28) by Proposal 5170 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(29) by Proposal 5176 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(30) by Proposal 5197 (Zefram), 6 September 2007 Amended(31) by Proposal 5202 (Murphy; disi.), 8 September 2007 Amended(32) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007 Amended(33) by Proposal 5213 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(34) by Proposal 5220 (Zefram), 13 September 2007 Amended(35) by Proposal 5256 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(36) by Proposal 5255 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(37) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(38) by Proposal 5288 (Murphy), 14 November 2007 Amended(39) by Proposal 5289 (Murphy), 14 November 2007 Amended(40) by Proposal 5322 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(41) by Proposal 5325 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(42) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(43) by Proposal 5336 (Murphy), 8 December 2007 Amended(44) by Proposal 5340 (BobTHJ; disi.), 8 December 2007 Amended(45) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007 Amended(46) by Proposal 5378 (root), 1 January 2008 Amended(47) by Proposal 5379 (root; disi.), 1 January 2008 Amended(48) by Proposal 5385 (Murphy; disi.), 1 January 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008 Amended(49) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(50) by Proposal 5424 (Zefram; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(51) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008 Amended(52) by Proposal 5510 (Murphy, Zefram), 28 May 2008 Amended(53) by Proposal 5547 (ais523), 21 June 2008 Amended(54) by Proposal 5549 (Wooble), 21 June 2008 Amended(55) by Proposal 5553 (Murphy), 21 June 2008 Amended(56) by Proposal 5625 (Murphy, OscarMeyr, Ivan Hope), 29 July 2008 Amended(57) by Proposal 5791 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(58) by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Finance by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2188/0 (Power=2) Win by Proposal Upon the adoption of a proposal awarding a win to one or more persons, all those persons satisfy the Winning Condition of Legislation. History: Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Adjudication A category concerning the judicial system by which matters of controversy are resolved. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 991/11 (Power=2) [Judiciary] 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 that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement. Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts. [CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously referenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if the number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those involved accept it as unambiguous at the time.] [CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so it is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.] [Cross-references (28 May 2008): the Clerk of the Courts' duties are: * issue Writ of FAGE (rule 1789) * not assign judges during holiday (rule 1769) * prefer judicial panels containing the Default Justice (rule 2019) * report open judicial cases (rule 991) * manage ID numbers of non-appeal judicial cases (rule 991) * refuse excess CFJ (rule 2175) * assign judge to judicial case (rule 1868) * track player posture (rule 1871) * rotate the bench (rule 1871) * push over recused judge (rule 1871) * track player hawkishness (rule 2203) * recuse tardy judge (rule 2158) * announce whether a Notice of Violation is valid (rule 2230) * inform defendant in criminal case (rule 1504) * report active sentences (rule 1504) * award patent title of Left in a Huff (rule 1922) * report Monster-related cases (rule 2193)] History: Initial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993 Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994 Infected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001 Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2225/0 (Power=1.5) Interest Index of Judicial Cases Each judicial case has an interest index, which CAN be set by its initiator at the time of initiation, and CAN be changed by any player without 2 objections, or by the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar without 3 objections. History: Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2158/6 (Power=2) [Judiciary] Judicial Questions A judicial question is a question that arises within a judicial case. Judicial questions arise only as defined by the rules. Defining a judicial question is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. At any time, each judicial question is either inapplicable (default) or applicable. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously. At any time, each judicial question is either open (default), suspended, or has exactly one judgement. This is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. The possible types of judgement for a judicial question depend on the type of question. When a judicial question is applicable and open, its case requires a judge. When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its case has a judge assigned to it, the judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. A judge SHOULD NOT assign an inappropriate judgement to any judicial question. A judgement is valid and/or appropriate only as defined by the rules. Defining these things is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. If more than one judgement is valid and appropriate, then the choice between them is left to the judge's discretion. When a judicial question is applicable and open, and its judge has violated a time limit to assign a judgement to it, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL recuse that judge with cause by announcement as soon as possible; however, this requirement is waived if the judge assigns a judgement to it first. [CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A judge should give the judgement that e believes is appropriate, and if e does so in good faith then e can be EXCUSED if the judgement is later found to have been inappropriate.] [CFJ 1871 (called 15 January 2008): The appropriateness of a judgement is determined solely by the facts of the case, and is independent of the reasoning used by a judge to decide on the judgement.] History: Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 591/30 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary] Inquiry Cases Inquiry cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.) The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are as follows, based on the truth or falsity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated: * 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 * 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 The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. [CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot 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.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993 Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial (unattributed) Amended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial Infected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial Amended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000 Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2230/4 (Power=2) [Crime] Notices of Violation A player MAY publish a Notice of Violation alleging that a single entity (the Accused) has broken a Rule. To be considered a valid notice of violation, the notice must specify all of: (a) The identity of the Accused; (b) The allegedly illegal action/inaction in question; (c) The Rule that was allegedly broken; (d) The name of the Class-N Crime (if any) specified in the Rules as being associated with the alleged breach, where N is the positive integer specified in the Rules for that Crime. Knowingly issuing a Notice of Violation with incorrect information is ILLEGAL, and the Class-4 Crime of Libel. A Notice of Violation is valid if and only if: (1) it clearly specifies the required information for a Notice of Violation; (2) no previous valid notice specified substantially identical information (i.e. the same violation for the same specific act). (3) when a crime is named, the crime is specified within the Rules. Neither a Notice's incorrectness (i.e. whether its allegation is false) nor its unfairness (i.e. whether the punishment resulting from leaving it Uncontested would be manifestly unfair according to the guidance of the Rules) affects its validity. As soon as possible after a player makes an announcement that is reasonably recognizable as an attempt to issue such a notice, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL announce whether the Notice was valid. Such a Clerk of the Court's announcement is self-ratifying. Affirming the validity of the notice does not in itself certify the correctness of the allegation. A valid Notice of Violation is initially Uncontested unless a Crime is named, Contested otherwise. Within four days after the publication of an Uncontested Notice, any player CAN make it Contested by announcement; a player SHOULD do so if e believes it is incorrect and/or unfair. An Uncontested Notice becomes Contested upon the initiation of a judicial case questioning its incorrectness and/or unfairness (but not merely by questioning its validity). A Notice that is still Uncontested four days after it is published automatically becomes Closed instead. Any player CAN cause a Notice specifying em as Accused to become Closed by announcement. When a Notice becomes Closed, a number of Rests are created in the possession of the Accused equal to the power of the violated Rule, rounded up. If a Closed notice becomes Contested, these Rests remain, but CAN be later destroyed by judicial processes as described elsewhere. History: Created by Proposal 6010 (ais523, Goethe, Murphy, comex, OscarMeyr), 14 December 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 6036 (ais523, wooble; disi.), 13 January 2009 Assigned to Committee on Crime by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(2) by Proposal 6056 (Taral), 23 January 2009 Amended(3) by Proposal 6057 (Taral), 23 January 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6063 (Taral; disi.), 4 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1504/35 (Power=2) [Crime] Criminal Cases Criminal cases are a subclass of judicial cases. Any first-class person can initiate a criminal case by an announcement calling for judgement on the circumstances surrounding a specified valid Notice of Violation alleging a rules breach by a single entity (the Accused). The initiator and each member of the Accused's basis are unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. A criminal case has a judicial question on culpability, which is applicable at all times following the call for judgement. The valid judgements for this question are: * GUILTY, appropriate if the judge finds, beyond a reasonable doubt, that ALL of the following are true: (a) the Accused breached the specified rule via the specified act; (b) the breach occurred within 200 days prior to the case being initiated; (c) judgement has not already been reached in another criminal case, or punishment already applied through another uncontested notice of violation, with the same Accused, the same rule, and substantially the same alleged act; (d) the Accused could not have reasonably believed that the alleged act did not violate the specified rule; (e) the Accused could have reasonably avoided committing the breach without committing a different breach of equal or greater severity. * NOT GUILTY, appropriate if GUILTY is not appropriate. In delivering this verdict, the judge SHOULD indicate which of of the sub-requirements for a finding of guilty were not found to be true beyond a reasonable doubt. If the Accused is found to be NOT GUILTY after a number of rests have been created in eir possession due to the notice in question, the judge CAN and SHALL destroy any such rests by announcement as soon as possible. A criminal case has a judicial question on sentencing, which is applicable if the question on culpability is applicable and has a judgement of GUILTY. If a criminal case has an applicable question on sentencing which has a judgement, the Accused is hereafter known as the ninny, the judgement in the question on sentencing is known as the sentence, 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 words (the prescribed words), appropriate for rule breaches of small consequence. When in effect, the ninny SHALL as soon as possible publish a formal apology of at least 200 words, including all the prescribed words, explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Failure to do so is a Class-3 Crime of Failure to Apologize. * SILENCE, a number of Rests, equal to the defined Class of the Crime or (if the breach is not a defined crime) the power of the breached Rule, rounded to the nearest integer with ties broken by rounding up, are created in the possession of the Ninny. The judge CAN double the amount of the fine with 2 Support, and SHOULD attempt to do so if e believes the Ninny showed bad faith by contesting an obviously-correct notice or by obstructing the course of justice. Players SHOULD NOT create rules defining Crimes of a Class greater than 14. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a criminal case within the past week CAN be initiated by the accused by announcement. If a verdict or sentence that led to the creation of Rests is overruled, remanded, or reassigned, the Rests are still considered to have been created, but the appeals panel CAN and SHALL destroy any created Rests by announcement. [CFJ 1720 (called 12 August 2007): Where a criminal charge is expressed in the form "violating rule NNNN by XXX", the alleged act for the purposes of the rules is only "XXX".] [CFJ 1845 (called 20 December 2007): Mentioning a rule in a section labelled "arguments" in a message that attempts to initiate a criminal case does not constitute clearly specifying the rule allegedly breached.] [CFJs 1857-1858 (called 31 December 2007): Ignorance of the law is not appropriate grounds for a verdict of UNAWARE.] [CFJ 1804 (called 19 November 2007): A verdict of EXCUSED is appropriate where a person mistakenly, in good faith, believes that eir action is legal when it is not.] [CFJs 1808-1809 (called 28 November 2007): Sentencing a ninny to "APOLOGY" without explicitly giving a set of prescribed words constitutes sentencing the ninny to APOLOGY with the empty set of prescribed words.] [CFJ 1846 (called 20 December 2007): For the purposes of prescribed words, words do not need to be a standard part of the language.] History: Created by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 2570, Apr. 12 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 2677, Sep. 26 1996 Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, Jan. 8 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(4) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(5) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial Amended(6) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(7) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002 Amended(8) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5109 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5132 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 5135 (Wooble), 17 August 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5153 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5155 (root), 29 August 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5223 (root), 30 September 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5294 (Murphy), 22 November 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5349 (Murphy), 13 December 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5386 (Murphy, Zefram), 1 January 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5404 (Murphy, pikhq, root), 16 January 2008 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2169/11 (Power=1.7) [Entrepreneurship] Equity Cases Equity cases are a subclass of judicial cases. An equity case's purpose is to correct a potential injustice in the operation of a particular contract. An equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract, by announcement which clearly identifies the contract and a state of affairs whereby events have not proceeded as envisioned by the contract (such as, but not limited to, a party acting in contravention of eir contractual obligations). This announcement SHALL also clearly identify the set of parties to the contract. For the purpose of this rule, the parties to a contract are measured as of the time the case was initiated; however, if the initiating message specifies a different time that falls within the week before the case was initiated, then that time is used instead. The initiation of an equity case begins its pre-trial phase. In the pre-trial phase the CotC SHALL in a timely fashion inform all the contracting parties of the case and invite them to submit arguments regarding the equitability of the situation. The pre-trial phase ends one week after the parties have been so informed, or immediately when all parties have announced that they wish to terminate the pre-trial phase. The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case. All other members of the bases of the parties to the contract are also unqualified, except while this would result in all entities being unqualified. An equity case has a judicial question on equation, which is applicable at all times following the pre-trial phase. The valid judgements for this question are the possible agreements that the parties could make that would be governed by the rules. A judgement is appropriate if and only if it is a reasonably equitable resolution of the situation at hand with respect to the matters raised in the initiation of the case and by the parties in the course of the case. When an applicable question on equation in an equity case has a judgement, and has had that judgement continuously for the past week (or all parties to the contract have approved that judgement), the judgement becomes Enforceable as a set of regulated requirements imposed by this Rule. Every party to the contract SHALL act to ensure the terms of an enforceable equity judgement specific to that party are satisfied, though this requirement does not create the ability to perform regulated actions that the party CANNOT otherwise perform. If a party fails to act as specified, e is in violation of this Rule; in such a situation, the judge CAN act on the party's behalf to fulfill said obligations Without 3 Objections, or the party may be subjected to a criminal punishment other than DISCHARGE for violating this Rule, but not both. The judge CAN, Without Objection from the parties, nullify a specified term or terms of the judgement, thereby removing the requirement of parties to act as specified. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in an equity case CAN be initiated by any party to the contract in question by announcement. If the judgement is Enforceable when it is appealed, the Appeals Court SHOULD assume that the judgement was fundamentally fair when made, and SHALL restrict its appeals judgement to nullifying terms of the judgement which are no longer applicable due to changed circumstances. If an announcement claiming to initiate an equity case regarding a private contract would otherwise be invalid solely because the contract does not exist or the initiator is not party to it, then it is valid, but its judge SHALL assign it a null judgement. [CFJ 1772 (called 28 October 2007): An equity case cannot be initiated with the rules as the subject contract.] History: Created by Proposal 5194 (Zefram), 6 September 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5355 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5387 (Murphy), 1 January 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5507 (root), 10 May 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5638 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5675 (Goethe), 3 September 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5812 (Murphy), 1 November 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5826 (Murphy), 6 November 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 6006 (Murphy), 10 December 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2205/1 (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, during the pre-trial phase. 3) For an equity case, the parties to the agreement in question, during the pre-trial phase. 4) The judge, when delivering judgement. Matters of legal interpretation SHOULD be classified as arguments; matters of fact SHOULD be classified as evidence. History: Created by Proposal 5487 (Murphy), 9 April 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5526 (Murphy), 2 June 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2157/6 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary] 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. [CFJ 1746 (called 21 September 2007): A judicial panel is not a person.] History: Created by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5134 (root), 17 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007 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 911/25 (Power=1.7) [Judiciary] 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 question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their effects, are as follows, based on the appropriateness of the prior judgement at the time it was delivered: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement, or if the prior judge exhibited corruptive self-interest (material, with a specific and obvious impact on eir judgement and arguments, and not arising merely due to a difference of opinion or a wholly incidental material benefit common among many players); the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again; this judgement SHOULD be assigned if the judge believes that the judge of the prior case will not make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged. As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only the first such published opinion for each member is used to determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for eir choice of judgement. If, immediately after either all members have so published or the time limit for so publishing has ended, a majority of the members have opined for the same judgement, the panel acts to deliver the judgement in question. If the time period ends with no majority judgement, the panel acts to deliver a judgement of REMAND. If the panel publishes a valid judgement via another mechanism specified in the Rules, the requirement for individual members to publish individual opinions is waived. A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else defaults to 50. In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision. [CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a judgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.] [CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form "I call for the appeal of " has the effect of initiating the Agoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.] History: Created by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993 Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993 Amended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994 Amended by Rule 750, May 4 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, susbtantial Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004 Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008 Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2175/4 (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. The Clerk of the Courts CAN refuse an excess case by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. History: Created by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1868/13 (Power=2) [Judiciary] Judge Assignment Generally At any time, a judicial case either has no judge assigned to it (default) or has exactly one entity assigned to it as judge. This is a persistent status that changes only according to the rules. At any time, a judicial case either does not require a judge (default) or requires a judge. This is not a persistent status, but is evaluated instantaneously. When a judicial case requires a judge and has no judge assigned, the CotC CAN assign a qualified entity to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so as soon as possible. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case are the active first-class players, subject to modification by other rules. Being unqualified to be assigned as a judge does not inherently prevent an entity from continuing to be judge of a case to which e is already assigned. When a player is poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of a judicial case, the Clerk of the Courts SHALL not assign em to be the judge of that case; if e has done so, and that player is still the judge of that case, then e CAN recuse that judge from that case by announcement. Making an entity unqualified or poorly qualified to judge is secured, with a power threshold of 1.5. To recuse a judge from a case is to deassign em as its judge. Assigning a judge to a case implicitly recuses its existing judge, if any. A recusal "with cause" is a recusal defined as such by the rules. [CFJ 1186: The Clerk of the Courts is required by Rule 1868 to select a Judge who is qualified ["eligible" at the time of CFJ 1186] at the time that the Judge is selected, regardless of whether that Player was qualified at the time that the CFJ was actually called for or when the identity of that Player is announced.] History: Created by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), Dec. 21 1998 Amended(1) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), Jan. 20 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 4166 (Elysion), 11 June 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5151 (root), 29 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5217 (Murphy; disi.), 13 September 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5248 (AFO; disi.), 14 October 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5277 (Murphy, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1871/25 (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). 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 there is a judicial case to which e is obliged to assign a judge, all entities qualified to be so assigned are poorly qualified, and e immediately afterwards (in the same announcement) assigns a judge to that case. When the CotC recuses a non-supine player with cause, e CAN flip that player's posture to supine by announcement in a timely fashion. [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: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2203/0 (Power=1.5) Hawkishness Hawkishness is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the following values: * Hanging. Hanging players are unqualified to be assigned as judge of any inquiry case. * Hugging. Hugging players are unqualified to be assigned as judge of any criminal case, and poorly qualified to be assigned as judge of any equity case. * Hemming-and-Hawing (default). Changes to hawkishness are secured. A player CAN flip eir hawkishness by announcement. History: Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2226/0 (Power=1.5) Judicial Rank Judicial rank is a player switch, tracked by the Clerk of the Courts, with the same range and default as interest indices. A player is poorly qualified to judge judicial cases whose interest index exceeds eir judicial rank. A player CAN flip eir judicial rank to any value by announcement. When a judgement is overruled on appeal, if the prior judge's rank is higher than 1, then it is decreased by 1, and e CANNOT increase it for 30 days afterward (the rest of this rule notwithstanding). "District", "Circuit", and "Supreme" are synonymous with judicial ranks 1, 2, and 3, respectively. History: Created by Proposal 5970 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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: Created by Proposal 5468 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2164/3 (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 a judicial question in that case. History: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2212/0 (Power=1.7) Judicial Declarations A judicial declaration published by a judge as required by the rules in conjunction with a judgement is self-ratifying, provided that that judgement remains in effect. Such a judgement may be inappropriate due to the content of this declaration, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Created by Proposal 5715 (Murphy), 7 October 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Patent Titles and Degrees A category concerning titles of honor and dishonor. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 649/28 (Power=1.5) Patent Titles A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change. 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 report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a list of which entities Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise. [CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by the rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the same spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same patent title.] [CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is borne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent title is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.] [CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a person at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.] [CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent title X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special meaning, it is correct to say that that person "is an X".] [Cross-references (9 February 2008): the Herald's duties are: * report Patent Titles (rule 649) * announce award or revocation of Patent Title (rule 649) * award patent title of Champion (rule 1922) * report the manner of wins (rule 1922) * report title dates for Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 402)] History: Created by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993 ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999 Amended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001 Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003 Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005 Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007 Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1922/31 (Power=1) Defined Regular Patent Titles The following are Patent Titles: (a) Scamster, which may be awarded to any Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of scams. This title may not be declined, retracted, or revoked. (b) A Patent Title (non-unique) now will Be known as "Bard", and granted those with wit. In order for the Title to be filled, A level of Support must call for it. Three players to a fourth may grant this name If these three write as one, with two Support. A current Bard may also grant the same, Provided that a second Bard's a sport. And so we don't the name of Bard debase, A Player with three Supporters can conspire To (from a Bard), this Title to erase: Or Bard (plus two Bards) make a Bard retire. But lest we ruin some poor minstrel's fun No bard will be dis-bard for eir bad pun. (c) Three Months Long Service, Six Months Long Service, Nine Months Long Service, Twelve Months Long Service, to be awarded by the IADoP to any player who has held a particular Office continuously for the specified duration. Each of these titles shall be awarded only once per player. (d) Champion, to be awarded by the Herald to any person who wins the game. The Herald's report includes how the player won. (e) Minister Without Portfolio, to be awarded by the Herald to any player who wins the game and does not already bear the title. If the number of persons bearing this title is greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules, then this title is administratively revoked from all non-players; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from any player who would be Speaker if the player wasn't inactive, until the number of persons bearing this title is no longer greater than the number of Prerogatives defined by the rules; if it is still greater, then this title is administratively revoked from the Speaker. (f) Left in a Huff, to be awarded by the Registrar to any player who deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. (g) Elder Lurker, to be awarded to Persons who are true legends that were involved in Agora in its early days and now continue to grace us with their presence by lurking on the lists to occasionally add tid-bits of wisdom or insight to discussions. (h) Cassandra, to be awarded to any player who noticed a scam, thought up a way to stop it, warned everyone clearly, and yet the scam happened anyway due to apathy on the part of other players. (h) Missed Congeniality, to be awarded to persons who gain the ability to make arbitrary changes to Rules with a power less than 2 by announcement, but lose the ability before gaining the ability to make such changes to higher-powered rules. [CFJ 1865 (called 14 January 2008): The Patent Title of Champion CANNOT be awarded by announcement of the Herald to a person who has not won the game.] History: Created by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(1) by Proposal 4129 (Goethe), Mar. 28 2001 Amended(2) by Proposal 4204 (Syllepsis), 28 August 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4288 (OscarMeyr), 5 May 2002 Amended(4) by Propsoal 4404 (Steve), 23 October 2002 Amended(5) by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003 Amended(6) by Proposal 4556 (Goethe), 22 March 2004 Amended(7) by Proposal 4614 (Goethe), 21 September 2004 Amended(8) by Proposal 4642 (Murphy), 12 March 2005 Amended(9) by Proposal 4708 (OscarMeyr), 18 April 2005 Amended(10) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(11) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 4891 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 4975 (OscarMeyr), 23 May 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5205 (Zefram), 8 September 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5290 (comex), 14 November 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5300 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5389 (Goethe), 1 January 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 5434 (Murphy), 13 February 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5559 (Quazie, BobTHJ), 25 June 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5596 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5805 (Murphy, Zefram), 29 October 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 5967 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 Amended(29) by Proposal 6009 (Sgeo), 10 December 2008 Amended(30) by Proposal 6071 (ais523), 16 February 2009 Amended(31) by Proposal 6084 (Goethe), 16 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1367/12 (Power=1) 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. A degree SHOULD be awarded ONLY IF its new bearer has published a suitable thesis with explicit intent to qualify for a degree (though not necessarily for the specific degree being awarded). A thesis is an essay whose topic is any facet of Agora Nomic or of nomic in general. A thesis's suitability depends on its originality and quality, with regard to the rank of the degree to be awarded. Degrees are generally awarded by proposals with adoption indices sufficiently high to award patent titles. History: Created by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001 Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18 November 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2231/0 (Power=2) 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 may be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a proposal of power 3 or greater. Heroic titles SHOULD NOT be revoked. Heroes are entitled to use the abbreviation of eir title as postnomial letters in Agora communications and reports. The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are: Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person for the most exemplary meritorious service to Agora or to the game of Nomic at large. As this title is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated right good forever. Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and beyond the call of duty. History: Created by Proposal 6016 (OscarMeyr), 18 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Contract Law A category concerning binding agreements that can be adjudicated within this nomic. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1742/17 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Contracts Contracts are binding agreements governed by the rules. Each contract requires a certain number of parties (two if not otherwise specified by the rules). Any agreement made by one or more persons, with the intention that it be binding on them and governed by the rules, becomes a contract when it comes to have at least the required number of parties, and terminates when it comes to have less than the required number of parties. Parties to a contract SHALL act in accordance with that contract. This obligation is not impaired by contradiction between the contract and any other contract, or between the contract and the rules. As it is manifestly unjust to bring criminal punishment into a manner of equity, if a player is found GUILTY of violating this Rule by failing to act in accordance with a contract that has never been a partnership, the only appropriate sentence is DISCHARGE, unless said failure is with respect to a previously-imposed Equity judgement. [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.] History: Created by Proposal 3558 (General Chaos), Oct. 24 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(2) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000 Amended(3) by Proposal 4533 (Murphy), 26 October 2003 Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Retitled by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 4987 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5009 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5028 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5040 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5420 (Wooble), 2 February 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 5640 (Goethe), 29 July 2008 Amended(16) by Proposal 5663 (Murphy), 9 August 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008 Amended(17) by Proposal 5759 (comex), 16 October 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2197/1 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Defining Contract Changes A Contract Change can be one or more of any of the following: (a) a person who intends to be bound by a contract becoming a party to the contract; (b) a person ceasing to be a party to the contract; (c) amending a contract; and (d) terminating a contract If a Contract Change is ambiguous or its permissibility cannot be determined with certainty at the time it is attempted, then that change has no effect. History: Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5704 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2198/4 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Making Contract Changes Contract changes are secured. If a contract specifies a mechanism by which Contract Changes to it can be performed, then such changes CAN be performed using that mechanism. If a contract does not purport to regulate becoming a party to it, then any person CAN become a party to it by announcement. If the minimum number of parties for a contract is at least two, then Contract Changes CAN be made to it by agreement between all the parties to the contract. Otherwise, any party to the contract CAN make Contract Changes to that contract without Objection. Any party to the contract CAN object to this dependent action. [CFJ 1876 (called 18 January 2008): "Agreement between all parties" can only exist if there are at least two parties.] [CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): Agreement between all the parties, to modify or terminate a contract, can be manifested by a contract between all the parties, including the contract being modified or terminated.] History: Created by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5502 (Pavitra; disi.), 26 April 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5677 (ihope; disi.), 3 September 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5686 (Goethe; disi.), 13 September 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(4) by cleaning, 12 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2178/5 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Public Contracts A public contract is a contract that has been identified as such, as specified by this rule. All other contracts are private. A party of a contract CAN identify it as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties, provided that at least one of the following is true: (a) The contract contains a clause identifying it as public. (b) The publication is accompanied by a notice, indicating unanimous consent of parties, that the contract be public. (c) The publication is accompanied by a notice, published without objection of its parties, that the contract be public. (d) the contract, or a notice accompanying its publication, contains a clause or indication that the contract is a pledge. A partnership CAN identify its contract as a public contract by publishing its text and list of parties. If the text of a potential contract is published with a clear indication that the contract will be public when it forms, then it is identified as a public contract when it becomes a contract. Changes in the text or list of parties of a public contract do not become effective until they are published. History: Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5380 (Goethe), 1 January 2008 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5403 (Murphy, Goethe), 16 January 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5804 (woogle; disi.), 29 October 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5835 (Goethe), 12 November 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6025 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2237/0 (Power=2) Subsidized Contracts Subsidy is a public contract switch with values Unsubsidized (default) and Subsidized. Liaison is a subsidized contract switch with values null and all roles defined by that contract. History: Created by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2173/3 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] The Notary The Notary is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of contracts. The parties to a public contract SHALL keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary's weekly report includes a list of all public contracts; the Notary's monthly report includes each public contract's text and set of parties. The parties to a private contract SHOULD keep the Notary informed of its text and set of parties. The Notary SHALL disclose this information (to the extent that e has been informed of it) to the judge of an equity case pertaining to that contract. The Notary SHALL NOT disclose it otherwise, except as explicitly allowed by the contract, or with the explicit consent of all parties. The Notary CAN terminate any contract without objection. [CFJ 1786 (called 6 November 2007): The notary is not prohibited from disclosing eir knowledge or guesses about the historical or current text and parties of a private contract where e has no privileged knowledge.] History: Created by Proposal 5254 (AFO), 18 October 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5551 (BobTHJ), 21 June 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy), 16 July 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5628 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2191/4 (Power=2) [Entrepreneurship] Pledges A pledge is a public contract identifying itself as such. A pledge requires at least one party. An equity case regarding a pledge CAN be initiated by a non-party, provided that all other requirements for initiating an equity case are met. The initiator of such a case is considered to be a party to the pledge for the purpose of that case. If a pledge does not impose any ongoing or unsatisfied obligations on its current parties, and will not do so in the future in its current form, then any person CAN terminate it by announcing that it is obsolete. History: Created by Proposal 5395 (Murphy), 16 January 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5578 (Murphy, comex), 16 July 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 2 by Proposal 5703 (root; disi.), 1 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5817 (Murphy), 1 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Small Business and Entrepreneurship by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2179/5 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs] Points For each point axis: a) Points is a fixed currency. b) A player's coordinate (syn. score) is the number of points e owns. There are two point axes, X and Y. A player's score is x + yi, where x is eir X coordinate and y is eir Y coordinate. Ownership of points is restricted to players. If winning is secured, then changes to point holdings are secured with the same power threshold. The Scorekeepor is a high-priority office, and the recordkeepor of points. Players generally CAN transfer points they own to other players, subject to the restrictions that no more than 5 points can be transferred this way to any one player, nor from any one player, per week. [Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Scorekeepor's duties are: * recordkeepor of points (rule 2179)] History: Created by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5802 (Murphy; disi.), 3 November 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6061 (ais523), 4 February 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2136/28 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs] Contests Contestmaster is a public contract switch, tracked by the Scorekeepor, with values 'none' (default) and all first-class players. A contest is a public contract whose contestmaster is not 'none'. The contestmaster of a contract CANNOT be flipped if any of the following are true: a) The contract is private. b) Doing so would cause a player to be contestmaster when a member of eir basis has already become a contestmaster within the past seven days. c) Doing so would flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who has not explicitly consented to be contestmaster of that contest. (If a player intends to flip the contestmaster of a contract to emself, this is considered explicit consent to be contestmaster of that contract.) Otherwise, the contestmaster of a contract CAN be flipped a) by any player without 3 objections, or b) if the contract is a contest, by any mechanism specified by that contract for flipping its contestmaster. Notwithstanding the rest of this rule, it is IMPOSSIBLE to flip the contestmaster of a contract to a player who is not party to that contract; and if a contract's contestmaster ceases to be party to that contract, that contract's contestmaster is flipped to 'none'. Changes to contestmaster are secured. History: Created by Proposal 4935 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4960 (OscarMeyr), 3 June 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5062 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5063 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5064 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5065 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5076 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5173 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5192 (root), 6 September 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5234 (Levi, Zefram), 3 October 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5293 (Goethe), 22 November 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5304 (root; disi.), 24 November 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 5305 (comex, Goethe), 24 November 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5302 (Zefram), 28 November 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5328 (Goethe), 5 December 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5362 (root), 20 December 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5397 (Murphy), 16 January 2008 Amended(18) by Proposal 5423 (woggle; disi.), 6 February 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5511 (Goethe), 28 May 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5566 (ais523, root), 29 June 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5784 (Pavitra, Murphy, comex), 22 October 2008 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5793 (root), 22 October 2008 Amended(22) by Proposal 5943 (woggle), 15 November 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 5971 (Elysion), 20 November 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5972 (root), 25 November 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5989 (Wooble), 7 December 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 6037 (Goethe), 13 January 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6049 (Murphy; disi.), 13 January 2009 Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2232/0 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs] Contest Axes Each contest has one or more axes, defaulting to {X}. An axis can be added to or removed from a contest as follows, provided that it would not cause a player to be contestmaster of multiple contests sharing an axis: a) by any player without 3 objections, or b) by any mechanism specified by that contest for changing its axes. History: Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2233/0 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs] Awarding and Revoking Points For each of a contest's axes, where N is the number of its parties that were active first-class players at the beginning of the week: a) A contest CAN award a total of 5N points per week. Its contestmaster CAN award points (up to this total) to its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as explicitly described in its contract. b) A contest CAN revoke a total of 2N points per week. Its contestmaster CAN revoke such points (up to this total) from its other parties by announcement, and SHALL do so as explicitly described in its contract. History: Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2234/0 (Power=2) Rewarding Contestmasters As soon as possible after the end of a month, for each contest and each of its axes, the Scorekeepor CAN and SHALL by announcement award N points to the player (if any) who was its contestmaster for at at least 16 days during that month and performed duties related to that contest in a timely manner during that month, where N is the number of players who were contestants of that contest at any time during that month. History: Created by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2187/4 (Power=2) [Indian Affairs] Win by High Score Upon a win announcement that one or more players have a score x + yi such that xy >= 2500 (specifying all such players), all those players satisfy the Winning Condition of High Score. Cleanup procedure: All those players have eir scores set to 0. All other players have each of eir coordinates set to floor(P*S/10), where P is eir previous coordinate along that axis and S is the Score Index. The Score Index is an integer from 0 to 5, and part of the Scorekeepor's report. The Scorekeepor CAN change the Score Index with Agoran consent. If no players have won by High Score in the past four months, then any Player may place Agora into Overtime with 3 Support. When Agora is in overtime, any announcement awarding or revoking points that is authorized by another Rule awards or revokes double the amount of the announcement. Agora ceases being in overtime when someone wins by High Score. History: Created by Proposal 5394 (Murphy, Goddess Eris, OscarMeyr, Zefram), 16 January 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5525 (Murphy), 2 June 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5558 (root; disi.), 25 June 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5585 (Goethe), 29 July 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6020 (Murphy, root), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Indian Affairs by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Foreign Relations A category concerning interaction with outside forces, including other nomics. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2200/3 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations] Nomic Definitions A nomic ruleset is a set of explicit rules that provides means for itself to be altered arbitrarily, including changes to those rules that govern rule changes. Not all rule changes need be possible in one step; an arbitrarily complex combination of actions (possibly including intermediate rule changes) can be required, so long as any rule change is theoretically achievable in finite time. A nomic is the single entity defined by a nomic ruleset as a whole. Each nomic ruleset defines exactly one nomic, and each nomic is defined by exactly one nomic ruleset. A foreign nomic is a nomic other than this one, even if it has the same name as this one. A province is a protectorate that is a player. An embassy is a registered partnership designated as representing a specific foreign nomic by both its contract and the rules of that nomic. History: Created by Proposal 5446 (Pavitra, Zefram), 24 February 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5523 (Pavitra; disi.), 2 June 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5968 (Murphy), 20 November 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2135/2 (Power=1) Advertising Every month the ambassador shall update the page about Agora on the NomicWiki at nomic.net, provided that that wiki is operational. This page, when updated, is to include a list of the current players. In updating the page the ambassador shall ensure that information that is currently incorrect is either corrected or removed, and that all links on the page point to extant pages that are correctly described. The ambassador may add new correct information to the page at eir discretion. The ambassador is encouraged to also advertise Agora in other suitable locations. History: Created by Proposal 4931 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5035 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5122 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 402/26 (Power=1) Identity of the Speaker The office of Speaker is held by the active player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the longest. The Herald's report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title. [Cross-references (27 October 2007): the Speaker's duties are: * assign prerogatives to Ministers Without Portfolio (rule 2019) * figurehead (rule 103) The other provisions governing the Speakership are: * identity of the Speaker (rule 402) * initial Speaker (rule 104) (provision spent)] History: Created by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993 ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1421, Feb. 7 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2661, Sep. 7 1996 Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Feb. 23 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(5) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), Mar. 9 1998 Amended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), Feb. 14 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), Aug. 21 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005 Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 Amended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005 Amended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 Amended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006 Amended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5593 (Goethe), 29 July 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 103/5 (Power=1) Role of the Speaker The Speaker is an imposed office, and the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker's behalf. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999 Retitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2148/3 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations] The Ambassador The ambassador is a low-priority office, responsible for relations with foreign nomics. A foreign nomic may grant certain powers (in the ordinary-language sense) and privileges to Agora's ambassador. If so, the ambassador shall generally exercise such powers in such manner as e sees fit, subject to other rules and orders. All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, to be the ambassador. [Cross-references (16 January 2008): the Ambassador's duties are: * advertise Agora (rule 2135) * exercise diplomatic privileges in foreign nomics (rule 2148) * track recognition (rule 2185) * flip recognition (rule 2185) * make foreign nomic a protectorate (rule 2147) * check that protectorates still meet the criteria (rule 2147) * report on protectorates (rule 2147) * proclaim protective decree to target nomic (rule 2159)] History: Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Power changed from 2 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2185/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations] Foreign Relations Recognition is a foreign nomic switch, tracked by the Ambassador, with values Unknown (default), Protected, Friendly, Neutral, Sanctioned, Hostile, and Abandoned. When a foreign nomic becomes a Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Protected. When a foreign nomic ceases to be a Protectorate, its Recognition becomes Unknown. A foreign nomic's Recognition CANNOT change to or from Protected in any other way. The Ambassador CAN, without objection, flip a foreign nomic's Recognition to any value (subject to the above restriction). E SHALL inform that nomic of the change as soon as possible. History: Created by Proposal 5392 (Murphy), 16 January 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2147/5 (Power=2) [Foreign Relations] Protectorates Whereas Agora, being the superpower of nomics, has an inherent responsibility to lead the nomic world; and whereas Agora desires to encourage growth and promotion of the nomic community, be it hereby known that Agora shall serve as benevolent protector to any nomic which requests such status (hereafter referred to as the protectorate). In order to become a protectorate, a nomic must specify in its ruleset that it submits to Agora as its benevolent protector. It must also have rules or other gamestate arranged such that any protective decree proclaimed by the ambassador will take full effect upon proclamation. Any restriction whatsoever on the content of a protective decree disqualifies the nomic from being a protectorate. If the criteria specified in the preceding paragraph are met, the ambassador may make the nomic a protectorate with Agoran Consent. If a protectorate ever does not meet these criteria, it ceases to be a protectorate. The ambassador shall check every month whether each protectorate continues to meet the criteria, and shall announce whenever a protectorate has ceased to be a protectorate. The ambassador's report includes a list of all protectorates, with contact details for each, and for each the forum in which it is most appropriate to proclaim protective decrees that target that protectorate. [Note (25 July 2007): Suggested wording for a protectorate's ruleset: "Any protective decree of Agora that targets this nomic takes effect as specified by the rules of Agora.".] [CFJ 1707 (called 20 July 2007): If a nomic's ruleset contains a statement similar to "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to make changes to its ruleset.", this can be interpreted as "This nomic's rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do.", thus satisfying the requirement to make protective decrees effective [at the time of CFJ 1707, the vaguer requirement to allow Agora to change its ruleset].] History: Created by Proposal 4988 (BobTHJ), 6 June 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5127 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2159/3 (Power=2) [Foreign Relations] Protective Decrees A protective decree is an act of Agora whose intended effect is to make explicit changes to the state of a protectorate nomic. The changes may include enacting, repealing, or amending rules of the protectorate, changing the set of players of the protectorate, or any other instantaneous changes to the protectorate's gamestate. Initiating a protective decree is secured, and is INVALID unless the initiating instrument unambiguously specifies the target protectorate and the changes to be made to it. As soon as possible after a protective decree has been initiated, the ambassador SHALL proclaim it to the target nomic. The decree takes effect upon this proclamation. Protective decrees should be initiated only for the purpose of assisting the protectorate in its growth and enabling its longevity. Protective decrees should always be benevolent. All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic, that a document is a protective decree. [CFJ 1860 (called 8 January 2008): Falsely claiming, to an entity that is neither a nomic nor a means of contacting a nomic, that a document is a protective decree is not a violation of rule 2159.] History: Created by Proposal 5091 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5391 (Murphy; disi.), 16 January 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2206/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations] Foreign Trade A player CAN spend some of eir assets to export them to a foreign nomic; e SHALL inform that nomic of the export as soon as possible, preferably by simultaneously sending the announcement to an appropriate foreign forum. The Ambassador SHOULD encourage foreign nomics to adopt legislation recognizing Agoran exports by creating comparable foreign assets. Players are encouraged to adopt legislation recognizing foreign exports by creating comparable Agoran assets. History: Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2207/0 (Power=1) [Foreign Relations] Trade Embargo A player SHALL NOT export assets to a foreign nomic unless its Recognition is Protected, Friendly, or Neutral. History: Created by Proposal 5537 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Assigned to Committee on Foreign Relations by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== 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: 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 2151/1 (Power=1) Agoran Arms The escutcheon of Agora is defined by the following blazon: Tierced palewise sable, argent, and sable, charged with a quill and an axe in saltire, proper, and in the chief a capital letter A, gules. Agora's adopted motto is "Agora n'est pas une fontaine." [Note (9 January 2009): A rendering of the escutcheon of Agora is at .] History: Created by Proposal 5037 (Zefram, GreyKnight), 28 June 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5285 (Goethe), 7 November 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2029/0 (Power=4) Town Fountain /\ /\ / \ / \ T his Power-4 Rule (the first ever) was placed to honor The Agoran Spirit Of The Game by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look on our works, ye Marvy, but do always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris! [CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an obilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because "Marvy" is currently undefined.] [CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not necessarily constitute a violation of this rule.] History: Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET