From nomic-business-owner@teleport.com Wed Nov 22 04:58:26 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA24948 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 04:58:24 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id CAA02348 for nomic-business-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 02:51:03 -0800 Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA02335 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 02:50:59 -0800 Message-Id: <199511221050.CAA02335@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA13358; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:50:05 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 833 Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-business@teleport.com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 11:50:05 MET In-Reply-To: <199511220945.BAA24674@desiree.teleport.com>; from "Andre Engels" at Nov 22, 95 10:44 am Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO > > ====================================================================== > ASSIGNMENT CFJ 833 > Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that > Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity. > ====================================================================== > Judge: Andre > Judgement: > > Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, > Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram > > Not Eligible: > Caller: Morendil > Barred: > On Hold: > 1005: > > Effects: Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement > > ====================================================================== > > History: > Called by Morendil, timestamp lost > Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET > Judged FALSE by nadre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET > > ====================================================================== > With so many errors I will do this upper part again: ====================================================================== JUDGEMENT CFJ 833 Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity. ====================================================================== Judge: Andre Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: On Hold: 1005: Effects: Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, timestamp lost Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET Judged FALSE by Andre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET ====================================================================== Andre From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Nov 22 03:52:42 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA24725 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 03:52:38 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA24712 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:45:20 -0800 Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA24674 for ; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:45:13 -0800 Message-Id: <199511220945.BAA24674@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA16804; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:44:18 +0100 From: Andre Engels Subject: OFF: CFJ 833 Judgement: FALSE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:44:17 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ====================================================================== ASSIGNMENT CFJ 833 Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity. ====================================================================== Judge: Andre Judgement: Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: On Hold: 1005: Effects: Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, timestamp lost Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET Judged FALSE by nadre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET ====================================================================== I cite Rules 1011, 869, 1043, 1432 and 676 as evidence. My reasoning goes : Rule 676 requires the Registrar to keep track of Players who have 'Left the Game'. If we assume that 'Leaving the Game' is equivalent to deregistering, this Rule has the consequence put forth in the above Statement. Even if 'Leaving the Game' does not equate to deregistering, Rule 1011 prohibits a Player (which 1011 itself defines as a Nomic Entity) from being 'arbitrarily modified'. Destruction of a deregistered Players would fall under that Rule, since no other Rule requires a Player to be destroyed when no longer associated with a person. In addition, Rule 1432 requires a Player to be 'kept around' when the person associated with it has deregistered it (or emself, I don't know which is more appropriate). Otherwise, there would be no way to associate 'the same Player' with a person reregistering. There are two minor points to mention. The first is that Rule 869 works only if we assume that Players are 'automagically' created when a person registers. This shouldn't be a problem, though, since nothing prohibits Entities from being abitrarily created. The second is Rule 1043, which states that a Voter 'ceases to be a Player' upon deregistering. If a Voter is the same as a Player, we must read that Rule as 'a Player ceases to be a Player', i.e. is destroyed. However, the equation of Voter and Player does not necessarily hold, and in any case Rule 676 has priority over Rule 1043. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: Judgement: FALSE Trying to judge makes one wish the term 'Game Entity' would have been defined My first problem was: Are Players Game Entities? The answer to this is 'yes', not only because of 1011, but also because Rule 206, which says: "Players and Groups are Voting Entities." (Rule 206 itself implies that a Voting Entity is indeed an Entity). But now take a good look at Rule 1011: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2) Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. (*Was: 450*) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- In my opinion Rule 1011 does not apply, for three reasons: 1. If there is a change it would be specified by the Rules. 2. Even though Players are, as shown, Game Entities, a Player is not an "Entity (...) which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic". 3. Not destroying the Entity would change it anyway, so even if Rule 1011 would disallow it, it would only make Rule 1011 in conflict with itself To make these points more clear: 1. Rule 1043 states that the Voter (which equates to the Player, Rule 103) ceases to be a Player, which acts as a specification. Furthermore, as Chuck has argued in CFJ 816 a specification as wanted by Rule 1011 may be implicit. The first Paragraph of Rule 1011 will NEVER stop any Rule (except 106) from having any effect it would have without its existence. If a Rule cannot take effect without destructing a Game Entity it (implicitly) specifies the destruction of that Entity. 2. Rule 869 says: "A Player is any person who is registered as a Player." This implies that the Player is the same Entity as the person. And the person clearly has existence outside of Agora Nomic. At least, I have... 3. This same line of Rule 869 implies that deregistration stops the Player from being a Player. Which clearly is a change - the Entity changes its Category... So, what is going on? First let's look at the Caller's arguments: 1. Rule 676 Even though the Caller calls 676 as an important part of eir evidence, it does not apply here. It only says the Registrar must list of each Player whether e has left the game. It might still be that there cannot be any Players who have left the game. This just implied that the category of Players who get (L) is always empty. This is indeed the case. Look at Rule 1016: "An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold." Said Rule 676 says that any Player is exactly one of the three: active, on hold or left the game. But all Players not On Hold are Active, so none has left the Game. 2. Rule 1011 As said, Rule 1011 does not apply 3. Rule 1432 This argument is more to the Point. It is clear that the Player is (still) in existence when a person reregisters. However Rule 1432 is also satisfied if the Player is 're-created', as long as it is the same Player that is recreated. Now we get to eir minor Points, which will be my major Points: 1. A Player is not 'automagically' created when a person registers. What happens, as Rule 869 shows, is that the person (an existing entity, although perhaps not an Entity yet) becomes a Player, i.e. is placed in a certain Category of Entities. This can be compared with the way Groups became Organizations under the Group/Contest/Contract Consolidation: There were no new Organizations formed to correspond to the old Groups, but the old Groups were placed in the Category of Game Entities which are 'Organizations', and thus became Organizations. Likewise when someone registers, no new Player is formed, or even filled, but the person is placed in the Category Players. All this is implied by Rule 869, which equates the person to the Player, not just makes them correspond to one another. 2. Rule 1043 DOES clearly show what happens: The person, which entered the Category 'Players' upon deregistering, now leaves that Category. All in all, it is starting to get clear what happens when a Player deregisters: The Player is indeed not destroyed, which would be a bit harsh, as the person and the Player are the same, it (or, better, e) simply ceases to be a Player. So, now let's get back to the Statement itself. We have already proven the Player does not cease to exist, it just ceases to be a Player. Does it stay a Nomic Entity. I.e. can a person, who is not a Player, be a Nomic Entity? The Rules are silent on this matter, they only define what IS a Nomic Entity, not what is NOT. Rule 217 says that now I must consider Game Custom, the Spirit of the Game and past Judgements. I think that I come close to Game Custom by saying that, unless the Rules specify or imply otherwise, those and only those things are Game Entities, which (quote Rule 1011) "exist[...] only within the context of Agora Nomic(...)". So someone who has deregistered is NOT a Nomic Entity. Conclusion: I judge this CFJ FALSE, on the ground that, even though the Player continues to exist, it is not as a Nomic Entity. Furthermore, even if e did continue to exist as a Nomic Entity, I would still judge FALSE, as such a continued existence would not be caused by Rule 1011, but by other Rules, or perhaps even Game Custom. ====================================================================== Evidence (included by reference with CFJ, complete text added by Judge): Rules 676, 869, 1011, 1043, 1432 Evidence (added by Judge): Rule 206 Judgement CFJ 816 (excerpt) ====================================================================== Rule 676/3 (Mutable, MI=1) The Nomic Phone Books The Registrar is responsible for maintaining the following information: Nomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player) their real name. Each entry is annotated with one of these codes that indicate the current status of the Player: (A) - active player; (H) - on hold; (L) - left the Game; as well as the date the last change in status occurred. Nomic Blue Pages: "Government Listing". List of each Officer and other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May also include other special official information like the address of the Nomic listserver, etc. The Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the Registrar's Report. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1315, Nov. 12 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1739, Oct. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 869/2 (Mutable, MI=1) Registered Players A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. Registration occurs when a person who is not a Player sends a message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently. If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the use of that Player's Agora nickname is preferred, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2) Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes, Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same name or nickname. (*Was: 450*) History: Created by Proposal 450, Sep. 10 1993 Amended by Proposal 1011, Sep. 5 1994 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, Jun. 2 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1043/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Deregistration A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister as a Player until a new Game has begun. Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, Nov. 4 1994 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1432/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Player Uniqueness If a Person becomes a Player, then ceases to be a Player, then becomes a Player once again, the Person becomes the same Player as e was previously. History: Created by Proposal 1438, Feb. 21 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 206/6 (Mutable, MI=1) Voting Entities and Votes A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities. Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in addition to an Entity's first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in other Rules. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. History: Initial Mutable Rule 206, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1479, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1553, Apr. 14 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1565, Apr. 28 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995 Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 14 1995 ---------------------------------------- Judgement CFJ 816: [On Rule 1011] It has been suggested that the word "specified" necessarily means "explicitly specified." This argument is absurd; it can just as well mean "implicitly specified." There are numerous changes which occur every day which are not explicitly specified; and thus there is a strong Game Custom that 1011 does not mean that changes must be *eplicitly* specified. I will give just one example: let's look at Rule 790, specifying the method of filling vacant Offices: Rule 790/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Filling Vacant Offices If, for any reason, an Office is vacant, that fact shall be announced by the Electioneer. The Electioneer shall be the Registrar; or in eir absence, the Speaker. All Players willing to hold the Office shall notify the Electioneer of that fact within three days of eir announcement of the vacancy. At the end of the three day period, the Electioneer shall randomly choose one player from those who indicated a willingness to hold the Office, and that Player shall become that Officer. This ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ rule applies to Offices in general, and thus defers to Rules for specific Offices. (*Was: 689*) Note it says, "that Player shall become that Officer." It does not explicitly say the Office is filled. Naturally, it does *imply* the Office is filled--and very clearly so--but it does not state so explicitly. Here is an example of an implicit change--the change in the Office from a vacant state to a filled state--but no one would suggest that the change does not take place because it is not explicitly stated, even given Rule 1011. Innumerable implicit changes take place like this every day. They are usually so obviously *implicit* in the Rules that we do not even consider to question them. To interpret 1011 in the manner suggested by some would be absurd, chaotic, and most importantly, against Game Custom.