>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Wed Aug 16 03:51:35 1995 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA06375 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 03:51:26 -0500 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA29546 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 01:49:53 -0700 Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA29524 for ; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 01:49:34 -0700 >From: csg419@wing.rug.nl Message-Id: <199508160849.BAA29524@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA14086; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:49:34 +0200 Subject: OFF: CFJ 795: Final Judgement (finally) To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 10:49:34 METDST Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ============================================================ CFJ 795 Caller: favor Statement: The dissolution of the Reform Group violated the Rules of Agora Nomic. Barred: TAL, Steve, elJefe Requested Injunction: none Judge: SugarWater Judgement: TRUE Injunctions: As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction: The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted. Reform Group still exists. The Game State will be adjusted appropriately. The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e executed the illegal dissolution. Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology: Philharmonic boustrophedonic supersonic gin tonic chronic pro-Speaker: Swann Judgement: TRUE pro-COTC: Dave B Judgement: FALSE pro-Justiciar: Zefram Judgement: FALSE Final Judgement: FALSE Effects reported by COTC (*: new to this report) SugarWater receives 3 points for Judgement Swann receives 5 points for speedy Judgement Dave B receives 3 points for Judgement KoJen looses 10 points for defaulting on Appeal *Zefram receives 5 points for speedy Judgement (strange, in fact... Speedy Judgement, while the Judgement was 3 full weeks after the call... Although real-life judges would find that very speedy, of course). *SugarWater loses 3 points for being overturned *The Injunctions are NOT effective ============================================================ ============================================================ History: Called by favor Wed, 26 Jul 95 09:31:05 EDT Assigned to SugarWater Wed, 26 Jul 95 22:57:16 CDT Judged TRUE by SugarWater Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:38:18 -0700 (PDT) Judgement published Mon, 31 Jul 95 11:25:15 CDT Appealed by KoJen Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:42:15 -0400 Appealed by elJefe Mon, 31 Jul 1995 14:05:13 -0400 Appealed by TAL Mon, 31 Jul 95 19:35:07 SET Appealed by Steve Tue, 1 Aug 1995 10:33:01 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, Chuck as COTC, and Steve as Justiciar Tue, 1 Aug 95 02:35:35 CDT Assigned to Swann as pro-Speaker Tue, 1 Aug 95 03:01:13 EST5 Assigned to KoJen as pro-Justiciar Wed, 2 Aug 1995 00:08:51 +1000 (EST) Judged TRUE by Swann Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:54:50 -0500 Assigned to Dave B as pro-COTC Thu, 3 Aug 95 10:53:07 CDT Judged FALSE by Dave B Wed, 9 Aug 1995 21:05:47 CDT Defaulted by KoJen Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:08:51 +1000 (EST) Assigned to Zefram as pro-Justiciar Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:05:38 METDST Judged FALSE by Zefram Wed, 16 Aug 1995 00:25 +0100 (BST) ============================================================ Arguments of Caller (favor): Rule 721 states that all Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the Rules. Therefore if an action by any Members of a Group does not obey the Ordinances (modulo conflicts with the Rules), that action violates the Rules. At the time the Reform Group was dissolved (or, for any Platonists listening, when dissolution-looking messages were posted to the Public Forum), Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances stated that the Purpose of the Group was to foster progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic. While such an abstract statement of principle cannot be held to govern every small particular action of the Members of the Group, the fact that the statement is included in the Ordinances, in the lowest-numbered spot, traditionally reserved for the highest-precedence and most-encompassing item, implies that it must have *some* impact on the Members of the Group, and must constrain at least *some* of their potential activities. There must, that is, be *some* action on the part of Members that would count as not obeying that Ordinance. The dissolution (or attempted dissolution) of the Group, coming as it did almost immediately after a change to the Ordinances which provided for the Group Treasury to be divided among the members upon the dissolution of the Group, constituted a breach of trust with those non-Member Players who had invested in Reform Group coins. More generally, it seriously eroded the confidence of the Agora public in Group currencies, to the point that the elimination of such currencies has been suggested. And even more broadly, it cast a pall on general mechanisms of trust within Agora Nomic. None of these effects can possibly be interpreted as fostering progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game; in fact, it is obvious that they have entirely the opposite effect, chilling any mechanisms of progress and growth that require trust, whether trust in Group currencies or in any other cooperative effort of Players. If any action could count as not obeying Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances, this action must be deemed to so count as well. Therefore this action does not obey that Ordinance, and therefore it violates the Rules of Agora Nomic. Naughty, naughty! ============================================================ Arguments of Judge (SugarWater): Allow me to begin with some clarifications. There is reason to assume that there will be those who doubt the validity or legal force of Ordinance 0, appealing to its obvious subjectivity and lack of specificity. However, the Rules make it clear that any group Ordinance, regardless of content, has legal force (under the Jurisdiction of the Rules). The establishment of subjective Ordinances only serves to place more power in the hands of those who interpret them (the Judicial system). If, in the opinion of this judge (and opinion it would be), the members of Reform Group had not "fostered progressive change and dynamic growth", Ordinance 0 would have been violated. I, therefore, encourage all Ordinance writers to carefully evaluate their Ordinances in light of this fact. Now, to the Judgement. . . Ordinance 0 outlines the "purpose of this Group". Purpose is defined as (according to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1993) "something set up as an object or end to be attained". Therefore, the goals within this rule are "to be attained". This does not require that each action be in line with this goal, but that, in the end, the goal be met. I interpret this to mean that the Group may not be dissolved until this goal is met. Ordinance 0 contains four requirements. I will address them individually. 1) The facilitation of Progressive Change within the Game This does not require progressive change. Merely the facilitation of it. Whether something is "progressive" is not is a matter of opinion, but the members of Reform Group have provided a forum (at least for themselves) to aid their attempts to modify the game. Many of those modifications could be termed "progressive". This requirement is met. 2) [The facilitation of] dynamic growth within the Game Again, there must exist facilitation of, Not necessarily realization of, dynamic growth. It is clear that the existence of the Group and its Ordinances allowed for dynamic growth. They dynamic growth of its point stock is only one example. This requirement is met. 3) Striving to insure continuity To insure is to make certain. This requires that the Group (and its members) attempted to make certain the continuation of the Game. Rule 1433/1 clearly states "A Game ends when a Win occurs". As long as this Rule remains, continuity cannot be insured. Because Reform Group made no efforts to remove this clause, i cannot believe that they have striven to insure continuity. In fact, the recent point hoarding (presumably in an attempt to win) suggests that the members of Reform Group encourage the end of the Game. This requirement has not been met. 4) Striving to insure playability. While a state of playability currently exists, no mechanisms exist to "insure" this state. I do not have access to individual Reform Group efforts or proposals, so I cannot determine whether an attempt to create such was made. This requirement is questionable. It is clear that at least requirement 3, and perhaps requirement 4, of Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances have not been met. Therefore, by its own language, the purpose has not been met. And, therefore, it is illegal for Reform Group to dissolve by the method it has chosen to do so. Ordinance 19 (the mechanism for dissolution) does not claim precedence, and is therefore governed by an unwritten "unless otherwise prohibited". It has been proven that Ordinance 0 prohibits dissolution by any means which do not have precedence over it. Though my reasoning differs from that of the caller, our conclusion is the same. The dissolution of Reform Group is illegal according to the current Rule State. Dissolution will be illegal until Ordinance 0 is removed or modified, Ordinance 19 claims precedence, or another method is chosen to dissolve. =========================================================== Arguments of pro-Speaker (Swann): Injunctions: I uphold the Judge's injunctions insofar as they are in accord with the Rules. Arguments: The question to be settled here is the legality of Reform's dissolution. The appealed Judgement was TRUE, that the dissolution of the Reform Group did, in fact, violate the Rules of Agora Nomic. Reform tried to dissolve on the basis of the following Ordinance: "19. At any time, any Member may Propose dissolution of the Group. The Group shall be dissolved when such a proposal receives the consent of the members. In this case each member of the Group receives an equal share of the Treasury upon ceasing to be a Member of the dissolving Group. A member who leaves the Group for any other reason shall not receive any share of the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury." This obviously illustrates condition (c) of Rule 1397: "A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following conditions become true: (a) The Group has no members; (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its Ordinances." However, (c) references the Ordinances as a whole, not any specific Ordinance. From this it's fairly clear that if Reform's Ordinances conflict with the act of dissolution in whole, or in part, then the condition (c) of 1397 cannot be met, and the Group cannot dissolve. This is, in fact, because of the lack of a precedence relationship defined within the Ordinances, making any conflict within the Ordinances irreducible. If a conflict exists, as alleged, then an action cannot be taken in "accordance with the Ordinances," because the lack of a conflict-mediation mechanism makes it impossible to define such an action. (Because of the language of 1397, I don't believe in this case a paradox is engendered. If the act cannot be defined, it cannot be "in accord with the Ordinances" as defined by (c).) Ords. 15 through 18 bear on the Vizier's duties, and manipulation of the Group treasury. These don't conflict with 19. Ordinance 14 is an interesting one, I'll get back to it. Ords. 9 through 13 are more definitional rules defining the Vizier's duties. Ords. 5 through 8 define the characteristics of the membership. Ordinance 4 is another interesting one, which I'll get back to. Ordinance 3 is essentially useless, since it refers to a situation that no longer exists (The Speaker distributing Proposals.) Ords. 1 and 2 deal with internal and external votes. Ordinance 0, of course, it the basis for the original CFJ. To wit: "0. The Purpose of this Group is to facilitate progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also striving to insure the continuity and playability of the same." To which I'll now add the two other Ordinances which I believe indispensable for this Judgement. "4. The Vizier may expend Points or Currencies held in the Group's Treasury for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership." and: "14. These Ordinances may be changed only with the consent of the Membership. No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules." Ord 4 is important because of the transfers the dissolution caused, Ord 14 is important because it defines the only precedence taken in the Ordinances. First, Ordinance 0-- I agree with favor's argument that an abstract statement of principle, enshrined within the Reform Ordinances, has some effect on the Group's activity. I disagree that it's position forces precedence over the remainder of the Ordinances. I believe that, except in the case of 14, there's no precedence defined within the Ordinances. (Though, as I argued earlier, any conflict voids the dissolution-- 19 would have to explicitly take precedence over the remaining Ordinances to remove any conflict.) Did dissolution violate this principle? I think that it is evident that the destruction of Reform (or any Group) along with the Coins of that Group (especially Reform Coins in this Context) violated the principles of "growth" and "continuity" in that the end of Reform caused a shrinkage in the economy and the number of Game Entities, and caused a discontinuity in the Agoran Economy (i.e., a massive shift of resources). However, it can be argued that the principles of "progressive change" and "playability" were fostered by this attack on point stagnation and the introduction of a major crisis-- crisis management being one of the major facets of playing this game called Agora :) In fact, it can be argued-- and has been-- that this crisis is quite in line with the spirit of Reform Ordinance 0. And, because it is an abstract principle expressed in Ord 0, the spirit of the Ordinance should carry at least as much weight as its letter. I think there is not enough evidence to rule that Reform violated Ord 0 in dissolving. But, this does not completely answer the question raised in the statement. Was the dissolution in accord with the Ordinances as a whole? Now we descend from lofty statements of principle to the muck-ridden and ugly mechanics of our legal system-- the Reform Ordinances in particular. First, the one precedence clause in the Ordinances, 14. It voids any change in the Ordinances that would cause an action already performed by a member to be in conflict with the Ordinances or the Rules. The abolishment of the Ordinances, when the group dissolved, is such a change. The Group cannot dissolve, if such dissolution would make a members prior act illegal... There's interesting wording here, which I'll repeat: "No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules." Because of the two clauses, this obviously refers to two separate conditions. The first is obvious, and we'll ignore it. The second is more problematical. Because of the separation the clauses, the second half is presumably not referring to retroactive effects, which are already forbidden. It could be interpreted to mean a continuing ban on ever rendering actions permitted and required by the members impermissible or unrequired, which is an impractical interpretation freezing the Reform more or less at the state that it was when this Ordinance was adopted. The only interpretation left is one that forbids changes from "illegalizing" actions that are occurring contemporaneously with the Ordinance change (either some continuing state or effect, or actions occurring at the same time as the Ordinance change.) This last interpretation is logical, makes sense, and has a great bearing on the dissolution of Reform. There are a number of things that occur at the same time as a Group's dissolution-- the primary one being the transfer of Currencies (of much is being made.) The transfer of Currencies is the sole responsibility of the Vizier in this case, because of Ordinance 4. This Ordinance goes beyond the Rules making the Vizier Executor, because it restricts the Vizier to only make transfers, "as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership." The act of dissolution is in accord with Ordinance 19, and also with the Consent of the Membership (who voted for dissolution.) *BUT* The dissolution of the group "illegalizes" the Vizier's duties. Simply stated, the act of dissolution crates the paradoxical situation where the Vizier is attempting to transfer points "as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership" as part of the greater act that dissolves the Ordinances, the Membership, eir duties as Vizier, the Treasury, and the Group. This is in violation of my interpretation of the final clause in Ordinance 14. To restate this interpretation to illustrate the conflict in this specific case: Ordinance 14 forbids any Ordinance Change which also causes actions that would be rendered illegal or against the Ordinances when the Ordinance Change takes effect. This, if it occurred in the Agora Ruleset might be UNDECIDABLE because of the paradoxical question of the state of Ordinance 14 if it is part of the Ordinance Change in question. However, because of the Ordinance's subordinate relationship to the Rules, an UNDECIDABLE ruling isn't merited. Quite simply stated, if the Ordinances either forbid the Group to dissolve, or creates an internal paradox when a Group tries to dissolve, (The situation I face here) then the Group cannot dissolve "in accordance with its Ordinances" as stated in 1397./0. Therefore, I must uphold the prior Judgement of TRUE, but for different reasons. ============================================================ Argument of the pro-COTC (Dave B): The issues involved in this case are complex. Rule 1397/0 requires that the voluntary dissolution of a Group must be in accordance with its Ordinances. However, the Ordinances of the Reform Group seem to be in conflict and neither the Rules, nor the Ordinances, specify how such conflicts should be resolved. Ordinance 19 appears to grant the Group the power to dissolve, but it fails to claim precedence over the other Ordinances. So any such dissolution that conflicts with other Group Ordinances would not be in accordance with the Ordinances. The Caller argued, and the judge agreed, that Ordinance 0 provides such a conflict. But Ordinance 0 does not require that all actions of the Group must be in accordance with its purpose. Nor does it require that the Group may not dissolve before the purpose of the Group is achieved. It seems reasonable to this Justice that dissolving the Group to further the purpose would be quite possible, even if that dissolution would only advance the purpose, not attain it. Thus I find that Ordinance 0 lacks the authority to override Ordinance 19. It is a guideline, not a mandate, and as such is not binding on every individual Group action. While I wish that I could decide otherwise, since I believe that this action of the Reform Group will have a grave impact on Agora, I must find that the action is in accordance with the Ordinances and the Rules. ============================================================ Argument of pro-Justiciar (Zefram): It appears that the major points of this case are the following: (a) Did the decision of the Reform group to dissolve violate its principles as defined by Ordinance 0? (b) If so, does Ordinance 0 take precedence over Ordinance 19 and prevent the dissolution? (c) Does the dissolution of the Reform group violate its Ordinance 14? The original Judge of this CFJ decided that (a) and (b) are true, yielding a Judgment of TRUE. The pro-Speaker decided that (a) is false, but (c) is true, also yielding a TRUE Judgment. The pro-CotC decided that (a) is true, but that the nature of Ordinance 0 (being a guideline rather than a specific prescriptive rule) is such that it is subordinate to the other Ordinances, making (b) and thus eir Judgment FALSE. (E did not address the issue of Ordinance 14.) I shall examine these issues in turn. (a) Ordinance 0 defines "the Purpose of this Group". Note that it does not define "the purpose of this Group". It is well-established in Agora that capitalisation of a noun where it would not normally be capitalised implies that the word refers to a game Entity, often having little to do with the normal English meaning of the word. It is conceivable that Ordinance 0 is not even a guideline, but that it defines some abstract Entity, called "the Purpose of Reform Group". Rule 754/0 might be taken to cover issues of capitalisation in some cases, but I doubt it. Ignoring the previous paragraph for a minute, Ordinance 0 states that the Purpose/purpose of Reform is "to facilitate progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also striving to insure the continuity and playbility of the same". It has been argued that dissolution of Reform does indeed do these things for Agora, and I agree. However, the Judge pointed out that it does not "insure the continuity of [the Game]", because it makes a Win happen sooner than it otherwise would, and the Game ends when a Win happens. Once again, capitalisation is highly significant: "the game" would refer to Agora, but "the Game" refers to the *current* Game within Agora. In this respect, dissolution clearly violated Ordinance 0. In conclusion on this point, I must say that I am rather undecided as to whether or not the dissolution violated Ordinance 0 or not. That decision hinges on how the capitalisation of "Purpose" is interpreted. Fortunately, I do not have to decide this... (b) Does Ordinance 0 have the power to prevent the dissolution? I think not. Ordinance 0 sets out the principles of the Group, if anything. It provides a definition. It is not prescriptive in any way. It makes no requirement that the Group meet, or attempt to meet, these goals. Therefore Ordinance 0 alone has no power to require any particular behaviour of the Group or its Members. (c) The pro-Speaker argued that Ordinance 14 should be interpreted such that it prevents any change to the Ordinances making any action currently being performed by any Member illegal. That is not what the Ordinance says -- it clearly states "no change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules." I interpret this as preventing retroactive effects, with the second clause being totally redundant. Redundant clauses are not illegal. It would be possible to rationally interpret "become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules" to mean "become void or illegal, under the new, changed Ordinances or the current Rules". This interpretation would mean that changes to the Ordinances could not illegalise any action that had ever been performed by a Member. This would be a weird, but legal, Ordinance. But I think the implied meaning of "Ordinances or the Rules", in this clause which applies to actions *already performed*, must be "Ordinances or the Rules *as they were at the time*". This is a much more normal interpretation. There is also the question of whether dissolving the Group constitutes a "change in the Ordinances". The pro-Speaker argued that dissolving the group abolishes the Ordinances, hence changing them. I disagree. I believe that the Ordinances are unchanged by dissolution of the Group, and are merely without effect from that point on. Hence, Ordinance 14 has no bearing on the legality of the dissolution. I therefore conclude that neither Ordinance 0 nor Ordinance 14 prevented the dissolution of Reform Group. Reform Group did dissolve, in accordance with Rule 1397/0 and its own Ordinance 19. ============================================================ Evidence provided by Caller (favor): I. Rule 721/0 II. Posting of revised Ordinances of the Reform Group III. Public Forum messages from the Reform Vizier IV. Discussion messages on loss of public trust ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 721/0 (Mutable, MI=1) The Ordinances, and Defaults All Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group at all times, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the Rules. The Ordinances of a Group may specify: 1. how the Ordinances of that Group may be changed, or that they may not be changed. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Ordinances shall be changed only upon unanimous agreement of all Members of that Group. 2. the Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances of a Group do not so specify, the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group was received first by the Registrar, if e is still a Member of that Group. 3. the Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group. If the Ordinances do not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group shall also be its Ordinancekeepor. 4. How the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury shall be spent, so long as it does not conflict with the Rules. A Group may spend Points or Currencies in the same manner as a Player. When Points or Currencies are to be spent from the Group's Treasury, the Vizier of that Group shall inform the Scorekeepor or Recordkeepor for the Currency, as is appropriate. ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 20:40:50 EDT >From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9507250040.AA29024@Camex.COM> To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: BUS: Revised Ordinances of Reform Group Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com All players please note: I, elJefe, Vizier of the Reform Group, certify that the Ordinances of the Reform Group have been changed, in accordance with the Ordinances. The Ordinances now read: Reform Group Ordinances 0. The Purpose of this Group is to facilitate progressive change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also striving to insure the continuity and playability of the same. 1. In all matters which require the Consent of the Membership, the Vizier shall announce the Matter in the Group's Public Forum, and all Members shall indicate their opinion to the Vizier as soon as reasonably possible. Consent of the Membership is defined as at least two-thirds of the Active Members in favor of the matter at hand. The matter shall not be resolved until either seven days have passed from the Vizier's announcement, or matters are such that no possible response from those Active Members who have not yet responded could result in a change in the consensus opinion. However, if, after seven days, less than two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all, the consensus shall be that the Membership is silently opposed. 2. The Ordinances shall have the power to bind the Active Members of the Group to cast their individual Votes on Proposals in a manner determined by the Ordinances. In the event that the Ordinances do bind the Membership to Vote upon a Proposal in a specified way, no Member may cast a Vote on that Proposal which is not in concord with this binding; however, a Member may always choose to not Vote upon a given Proposal. 3. On each Proposal distributed by the Speaker, the Vizier shall seek to determine the consensus opinion of the Group of how the Membership of the Group shall vote. Each Member may express exactly one of the options specified below, or may indicate that e has no opinion; if any of these options is favored by at least two-thirds of those Members expressing an opinion, the Membership shall be bound by the terms of that option, provided that at least two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all prior to the end of the Voting Period for that Proposal. If no consensus of opinion is reached by the time that 24 hours remain of the Voting Period of a Proposal, then the Membership shall be free to Vote as they are individually inclined on that Proposal. The options are: * to vote FOR the Proposal; * to Vote AGAINST the Proposal; * to ABSTAIN on the Proposal; * to allow the Members to vote however they please on that Proposal (UNBOUND); * to direct the Vizier to solicit bids from the Electorate at large for the privilege of designating the manner in which the Group Members shall be bound to Vote (SOLD). When the consensus opinion of the Group on a specific Proposal is to offer the Group's Votes up for sale, the Vizier shall post an announcement to all Active Players advising them that the Membership of the Group offers its votes on that Proposal to the Player who bids the largest number of the Coin of the Group for that privilege. Members of the Reform Group may not enter bids in the sale of the Group's votes, nor may any Player who has been a Member of the Reform Group during the 10 days previous to the time the auction is announced. Bids shall be in the form of transfers of a positive number of Reform Group Coins to the Reform Group Treasury. A Player makes a bid by sending a message to the Vizier of the Group indicating which Proposal e is bidding on, how much e is bidding, and the manner in which e wishes to direct the Group to vote if eir bid is successful. At any time, a Player's bid on a particular Proposal for which the Group's votes are up for sale shall be the total number of Coins which that Player has transferred to the Reform Group Treasury in bids on that Proposal. The Vizier shall accept bids until 72 hours prior to the end of the Voting Period on the Proposal. The Vizier shall then notify the highest bidder, if there is one, that e has won the auction. All unsuccessful bids are then returned to their respective bidders. If there is a successful bid, then the Membership of the Group shall be bound to vote as the successful bidder has indicated. Otherwise the Membership shall be free to vote as they please. One half of the Coins transferred in a successful bid, rounded up, shall be distributed as evenly as possible among the active members of the Group; the remainder, along with any fraction unable to be evenly distributed, shall be destroyed. 4. The Vizier may expend Points or Currencies held in the Group's Treasury for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership. 5. New Members may be admitted to the Group with the consent of the Membership. The Name of a New Member shall be added to the bottom of the List of Members. 6. An existing Member may be expelled from the Group with the consent of the Membership. For the purpose of determining the Consent of the Membership in a matter of expulsion, the Member being considered for expulsion shall have no voice. 7. Whenever a Member leaves the Group for any reason, eir name shall be removed from the List of Members. 8. A Member may, at any time, request that eir name be moved to the bottom of the List of Members. 9. The Vizier may, at any time, nominate another Member as eir nominated successor, who shall become Vizier in the event of a vacancy, and may retract any such nomination at any time. All such nominations and retractions shall be made to the Group's Public Forum. 10. The Vizier may resign as Vizier at any time, with or without leaving the Group. Should the Vizier resign without nominating a successor, e shall be expelled from the Group. 11. In the event that the Group might otherwise have no Vizier, the Vizier's nominated successor shall become Vizier. If there is no nominated successor, or the nominated successor is ineligible, the first Member on the List of Members shall become Vizier. If there is no such Member, the Group shall be dissolved. 12. The Vizier shall, in addition to eir other duties, maintain a record of the nominated successors to all Group Offices, and maintain the List of Members in the order required by these Ordinances, and make this information available to any Member upon request. 13. The Vizier shall, at all times, be the Ordinancekeepor. 14. These Ordinances may be changed only with the consent of the Membership. No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules. 15. The Vizier may create or destroy Coins of the Group at any time for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership. 16. The Vizier shall permit Players to purchase Coins of the Group from the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange. If a Service Fee applies to the transaction, the number of Coins received shall be reduced by the amount of the Service Fee. A Player who wishes to purchase Coins may do so by transferring a sufficient number of Points to the Group Treasury. When the Scorekeepor has confirmed the Point Transfer, the Vizier shall transfer the appropriate number of Coins to that Player, creating Coins if necessary. The current Service Fee is equal to 5% of the transaction, not to be less than 1 Coin, or to exceed 50 Coins. This fee does not apply to members of the Reform Group. 17. The Vizier shall permit Players to sell Coins of the Group back to the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of Exchange. A Player who wishes to sell Coins back to the Group may do so by transferring the Coins e wishes to sell to the Group Treasury. The Vizier shall then transfer the appropriate number of Points from the Group Treasury to that Player. The transferred Coins shall then be destroyed. 18. The Rate of Exchange for Coins of the Group shall be the ratio between the number of Coins of the Group in existence (less those held in the Group's Treasury) and the number of Points held in the Group's Treasury. This ratio determines the number of Coins received in exchange for one Point, or the number of Coins needed to receive one Point. 19. At any time, any Member may Propose dissolution of the Group. The Group shall be dissolved when such a proposal receives the consent of the members. In this case each member of the Group receives an equal share of the Treasury upon ceasing to be a Member of the dissolving Group. A member who leaves the Group for any other reason shall not receive any share of the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury. Regards, - elJefe, Reform Group Vizier ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 09:26:12 -0400 >From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9507251326.AA00379@zeus.Camex.COM> To: gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au, jlc@triple-i.com, kunne@crnvma.cern.ch Subject: BUS: Result: Proposal to dissolve Cc: nomic-business@teleport.com Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Two-thirds of the members having responded in the affirmative, and no there being no possible response from other members which could change the outcome, I declare that the Group is dissolved. - elJefe, Reform Group Vizier ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:00:50 -0400 >From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso) Message-Id: <9507251400.AA00734@zeus.Camex.COM> To: nomic-business@teleport.com Subject: BUS: Dissolution of Reform Group Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com I, elJefe, Vizier of the Reform Group, certify the following. Registrar, please note: In accordance with its Ordinances, the Reform Group has elected to dissolve, and is dissolved under authority of Rule 1397. Registrar, please note: TAL, Steve and elJefe cease to be members of the Reform Group, simultaneous with its dissolution. Scorekeepor, please note: Under authority of Rule 762, each of TAL, Steve, and elJefe (the players ceasing to be members of the Reform Group) receives 1/3 of the contents of the Reform Group Treasury. In particular: TAL receives 958.0 points, Steve receives 958.0 points, elJefe receives 958.0 points. This is in excess of the 90% limit in Rule 1476, but that rule conflicts with Rule 762, which claims precedence over all other rules which determine which transfers are legal. Regards, - elJefe, Vizier of dissolving Reform Group ****************************************************************** Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso Information International ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 20:41:37 -0400 >From: gb485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven A Swiniarski) To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Subject: Re: BUS: Dissolution of Reform Group Sender: owner-nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Reply to message from c647100@showme.missouri.edu of Tue, 25 Jul > >On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Charles E. Carroll wrote: > >> >I would like to heartily laugh at anyone who thinks that any >> >non-Ruleset-sanctioned currency (such as RG Coins) can *possibly* work >> >right. >> >> Uh-huh. And why wouldn't something like Reform work with an Ordinance >> like: "Any Ordinance Changes must be published in the Public Forum, >> and do not take effect earlier than one week after such publication?" >> >> Chuck >> >This also begs the question of whether any Ruleset-sanctioned >currency can work right. The Rules are hardly less fluid >than ordinances. Look at Marks (or Walruses, or Bunnies....) > >Vlad > > This I think misses the point on two counts-- first off, a large part of any currency, virtual or otherwise, comes as much from faith as it does from any intrinsic value. The fact that Reform did what it did has probably permanently damaged the faith any Player's going to have in any group-based currency. That faith is so important to the value of any currency there's been at least one knee-jerk response to eliminate Group currencies altogether. That, I think, is a stupid response-- but it shows how devaluing this one act was, depite the fact that it changed the rules not a whit. The second point-- and this is why the maliase hasn't, and probably won't spread to the ruleset at large-- is the fact that a large number of Players lost a lot in this wiothout being consulted, informed, or having any sort of vote on the matter. Whatever happens with the Ruleset of Agora, it probably wont, initially, happen behind everyone's back. Swann -- Steven Swiniarski (aka S Andrew Swann) gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship. --Harry S Truman ------------------------------------------------------------------------- =========================================================== Evidence provided by pro-Speaker (Swann): Rule 1397/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Dissolution of Groups A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following conditions become true: (a) The Group has no members; (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its Ordinances. Upon the dissolution of a Group, all remaining Members of the Group simultaneously cease to be Members of that Group. Next, any Points remaining in the Group's Treasury are destroyed, and any Currencies remaining in the Group's Treasury are transferred to the issuing Entity for that Currency (the Bank for Marks, the issuing Group for Coins). Finally, all Coins issued by the dissolving Group are destroyed. In the case of a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of the dissolving Group shall notify the Registrar of the Group's dissolution. in all other cases, the Registrar shall be responsible to detect and report the Group's dissolution. History: Created by Proposal 1397, Jan. 29 1995 ---------------------------------------- Rule 1478/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Executors The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the Executor of that Entity. The Executor of a non-Player Nomic Entity shall have the legal authority to act on behalf of that Entity, as if e were that Entity. The Rules may also specify constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act. If a non-Player Nomic Entity has no Executor, it may not act except as specifically required of it by the Rules. The Executor of a Group is that Group's Vizier. For the sake of completeness, a Player is eir own Executor. History: Created by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995 ---------------------------------------- ============================================================ End of CFJ 795 ============================================================