>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com Mon Nov 13 04:34:41 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 EAA16621 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 04:34:34 -0600 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id CAA17827 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 02:30:20 -0800 Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA17803 for ; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 02:30:13 -0800 >From: csg419@wing.rug.nl Message-Id: <199511131030.CAA17803@desiree.teleport.com> Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl (1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA25512; Mon, 13 Nov 1995 10:34:14 +0100 Subject: OFF: CFJ 818 Final Judgement: TRUE To: nomic-official@teleport.com Date: Mon, 13 Nov 95 10:34:14 MET Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85] Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Status: RO ======================================================================= FINAL JUDGEMENT CFJ 818 The Rules in general should be interpreted that, if the alleged Compact of the Mousetrap Organization exists, it cannot contain the Player Swann within its Jurisdiction. ======================================================================= Judge: KoJen Judgement: TRUE Speaker: Michael Judgement: TRUE Cotc: Andre Judgement: TRUE Justiciar: Steve (must delegate eir duties) pro-Justiciar: Morendil Judgement: FALSE Final Judgement:TRUE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, Erick, favor, KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, SugarWater, Vanyel, Vlad, Zefram Not Eligible: Caller: Swann Barred: Kelly, elJefe, Steve On Hold: Effects: KoJen gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Andre gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Morendil gains 5 Points for speedy Judgement Michael gains 3 Points for timely Judgement ====================================================================== History: Called by Swann, 31 Oct 1995, 00:34 -0500 Assigned to KoJen, 31 Oct 1995, 14:32 MET Judged TRUE by KoJen, 2 Nov 1995, 16:03 -0500 Appealed by Kelly, 4 Nov 1995, 21:08 EST5 Appealed by Morendil, 5 Nov 1995, 17:26 +0001 Appealed by elJefe, 6 Nov 1995, 09:39 -0500 Assigned to Kelly, Andre and Steve, timestamp lost Delegated to Morendil as pro-Justiciar, ?? Nov 1995, 18:19 +1100 (EST) Judged TRUE by Andre, 8 Nov 1995, 16:37 MET Judged FALSE by Morendil, 9 Nov 1995, 01:05 +0001 Judged TRUE by Michael, 10 Nov 1995, 18:31 GMT ======================================================================= Arguments: Player Kelly has alleged that Swann is under the Jurisdiction of a Compact belonging to an alleged Orginization known as Moustrap. Kelly has since sent a message to the Players in this alleged Jurisdiction alleging that I Violayted said Compact. Below, as evidence, I present the message I refer to. It was the first I had ever heard of "Mousetrap" and it is an obvious attempt to hijack the Notary's office by including me in the Jurisdiction of a Compact I have never seen or consented to belong to. The question is: Is such a thing possible? Are the rules so constructed that any arbitrary Organization's Compact can claim Jurisdiction over any Player w/o that Player's consent or knowledge? Obviously Kelly and the other members of the Threat believe this is so and are attempting to exploit this loophole for their own ends. So what do the Rules say about the Jurisdiction of Organizations? >From Rule 1530: "A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization. [...] This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing Compacts." That is fairly clear. A given Organization can only claim Jurisdiction over those players the Rules grant the Organization the right to claim Jurisdiction over. Specifically the Rles pertaining to the Class of Organization. This means that if the Mousetrap Organization belongs an undefined Class, it can have Jurisdiction over _no_ Players, because there are no Rules permitting its Class of Organization to have Jurisdiction over _any_ Players. Unfortunately, Kelly has failed to inform me of what Class of Organization Mousetrap is, so I must address each possibility in turn. If Moustrap is of an undefined Class, its Jurisdiction is a set containing no Players, and therefore cannot contain Swann. If Mousetrap is a Group, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction because Swann sent no message to the Vizier of Mousetrap and is also a member of the Misanthopists' Group. >From 719: "ii) No Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir sending a request for Membership to the Vizier of that Group. iii) A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group." If Mousetrap is a Contest, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction because Swan made no application to become a Contestant, paid no entry fee, and did not consent to be Contestmaster. >From 1539: " i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become Contestmaster without eir consent. [...] A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund." If Mousetrap is a Contract, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction because Swann was neither a Foundor of Mousetrap, nor did Swann notify the Notary of any desire to become Party to it. >From 1455: "The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the Contract. [...] If a Party is being added to, or removed from, the Contract, the change only has effect if _that_ Party sends the notification." The case of Barerbonds is analogous to Contracts. Swann sent no message to the Notary requesting to be part of the Jurisdicton of such a Compact: >From 1499: "A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules for a Contract. [q.v. avove, Contract Foundors] [...] To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which Bearerbond is involved [...]" Since Swann cannot be forced into a Jurisdiction of any existing Class of Organization, and Organizations without defined Classes have no Jurisdiction for Swann to be part of, Swann therefore cannot be part of the Jurisdiction of Organization Mousetrap's Compact, as Kelly claims in eir message. This is TRUE regardless of the existence of Mousetrap itself, which is a separate legal question for a future CFJ. ======================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Judge: My decision on CFJ 818 is TRUE. I.e., that the Compact of the Mousetrap Organization, if it exists, cannot contain Swann within its Jurisdiction. Let us assume, for the purposes of this CFJ, that the Mousetrap Organization does indeed exist, and that its Contract reads as it has been published in the Public Forum by members of the Triumvirate. (Actually, one or both of the above are almost certainly false for other reasons, but this will be ignored for the purpose of this CFJ. See the Appendix for a demonstration of why other types of Organizations besides Groups, Contests, and Contracts do not exist.) The question becomes, can Statute 9 (assuming that it exists) compel Swann to fall under its jurisdiction? We know that Mousetrap, if it exists, is not a Group, not a Contest, and not a Contract. So, what kind of Organization is it? None of the above. (Remember, we're suspending for the moment the impossibility of having other types of Organizations.) R1530 sez: > A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to > it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization. What are the Rules governing the non-Group, non-Contract, non-Compact Class of Organization? None. There are no Rules which force Swann to be under this Jurisdiction. It has been claimed by some that R116 is the Rule which governs this Class. However, this is a gross stretch of the term "to Govern". Merely stating that "the unprohibited is permitted" is not a phrase which I can accept as "governing a Class of Organization". Especially because we have examples of Rules which *do* explicitely govern a class of Organization. Namely, R766 governs the class known as Group. Rule 1446 govers the Contest. R1455 governs the Contract. Each of these very specifically and unambiguously defines which Players are under the jurisdiction of an Organization of that class. In other words, Rules 1446, 1455, and 766 serve as examples for what is meant for a Rule to "governs a Class of Organization". Had there been *no* such Rule, then we could pehaps take some license and look harder for rules which *might* be interpreted as such. However, since there are such Rules, and they are unambiguous, it is quite apparent that R116 should not be interpreted as such. Apppendix: Why the Above Reasoning is Somewhat Irrelevant, Because the Mousetrap Never Existed in the First Place. R1528 sez: > Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations. Cannot the "set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations" (call it S) be itself a Nomic Entity? Of course it can. R1011 sez: > 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. Is S created by Nomic Rules? Yes. R1528 effectively creates it by the phrase "Let there be...". Does S exist only within the context of Agora Nomic? Yes. How could a set of Nomic Entities exist in any contect other than Nomic? Therefore, the set of Organizations is a Nomic Entity. To add to this set (by adding another class of Organization) would be to arbitrarily change a Nomic Entity, prohibited by R116. We must also remember, in divining the meaning of R116, that R116 merely "permits" the unprohibited. It does not make "possible" the unprohibited. This has been discussed before, and I thought was generally accepted. Even if it were "permitted" to add to the set, it would still be "impossible", because there are no provisions for doing so. -- KoJen ======================================================================== Decision & Reasoning CotC: I uphold the Judge's decision of TRUE. I also agree with most of the original Judge's reasoning. It is clear that the Mousetrap is of a Class not defined in the Rules, which on itself is not disallowed, but being of a Class not defined in the Rules, it can have Jurisdiction over no Players, as Rule 1530 says: "A compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class or Organization." It is my feeling that Rule 116 cannot be used here. The main reason is that Rule 116 is much too wide to be counted as 'the Rules governing its [Mousetrap's] Class of Organization'. Another main reason is that the Jurisdiction of a Compact is not 'not prohibited or regulated by a Rule'. It IS regulated by a Rule, namely 1530. And extending Mousetrap's Jurisdiction to include Swann IS forbidden by a Rule, namely 1530. In other words: Rule 116 simply doesn't apply. Clerk of the Courts, Andre ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Pro-Justiciar Decision: FALSE Introductory comments The Mousetrap, whatever legal status that entity has, was in recent days the source of much debate and activity. Its existence first became manifest when a Move of dubious legality, but which went uncontested, refused to acknowledge as legal the results of an Election conducted in accordance with the Rules. Much of the debated that ensued, and which continues at the time of this writing, revolved upon what interpretation we are to give to Rule 116, and specifically to the words "govern" and "regulate", as well as "permitted". Let me know break from that impersonal tone which I find as tedious as you do. As a New Player, I have learned much (and gained much respect for some older Players) from that debate. My conclusion is that the Mousetrap, in attempting to point out flaws in the new Organization Rules, put a lot of weight to bear on Rule 116, and that a clarification is necessary. I have decided on an interpretation of that Rule that seems sensible; the results of this CFJ hopefully will assist in interpreting further Moves abusing Rule 116, and will perhaps be incorporated into it if it's really useful. My interpretation of Rule 116 : --- Rule 116 governs all play, if only because Players are required to obey all Rules. Therefore, all constructions of the form 'if the set of Rules governing X...", when no Rules specifically govern X, shall be taken to refer to a set of Rules of one element, Rule 116. Thereafter, <> will serve as shorthand for "the set of Rules governing X", and thus Rule 116, when the set of Rules referred to is empty. 1) Constructions of the form "if <> permit Y" shall be taken to mean that Y is permitted. This follows directly from 116. 2) Constructions of the form "if <> so specifies, Y is permitted" shall be taken to mean that Y is not permitted. This is because Rule 116 does not specify anything. 3) Constructions of the form "as defined in <>" shall be taken to mean that whatever Entity should be defined does not exist. --- I take as a given that there are no Rules specifically governing the Class of Organization that Mousetrap, if it exists, belongs to. We shall now apply that interpretation to all Rules relevant to Mousetrap, as a demonstration that this interpretation allows to make legal decisions without recourse to logical or mathematical arguments, and that these decisions can be taken easily and unambiguously : 1501 : "An Organization is Public unless the Rules defining its Class permit (or require) it to be Private" : Mousetrap is permitted to be a Private Organization. 1528 : "An Organization only possess [sic] Treasuries if the Rules governing that Organization specify so" : the Mousetrap, if it exists, cannot have Treasuries. 1529 : "A Compact may only possess those elements allowed it by the Rules defining its Class of Organization. If these Rules do not specify, the Compact may only consist of Statutes" : the Compact of Mousetrap, if it exists, may only contain Statutes. 1530 : "A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization" : the Compact of Mousetrap, if it exists, can potentially include any Player in its Jurisdiction. My Judgement of FALSE follows. 1531/1532 : "The Administrator and Executor must come from within the Jurisdiction of the Organization's Compact unless otherwise specified by the Rules governing its Class" : in the case of Mousetrap, if it exists, they must indeed. 1533 : "The set of required Foundors is specified within the Rules defining the particular Class of Organization" : there is no set of Foundors for Mousetrap that can possibly meet the requirements specified in Rule 116, for it does not specify any, thus Mousetrap does not exist. This is an application of case 2) of my interpretation. All other examples were derived from 1). In conclusion, my Judgement of FALSE on CFJ 818 is a special case of the general interpretation stated above. ====================================================================== Decision & Reasoning Speaker: Judgement: TRUE Argument: I choose to entirely ignore the issue of whether or not the Mousetrap organisation exists. This issue is being addressed as I write by other Judgements and Appeals. Of course, if it doesn't exist, then the Judgement becomes TRUE because the implication's antecedent is false. However, to jump to a conclusion on the basis of a proposition whose truth-hood is before the courts is very dubious practice, so I will not consider this possibility, and will instead develop my argument after assuming that the Mousetrap does exist. If the Mousetrap does exist, its Jurisdiction is only allowed to cover those Players "permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization" (1530/0). Those who argue in favour of the Mousetrap's existence, and its ability to do what is claimed of it, posit the view that the phrase "the Rules governing its Class of Organisation" denotes a set of rules that includes R116. The basis for this claim is that the whole ruleset governs how the game of Agora is played in its entirety, so all rules in the ruleset must be considered as possible candidates for something which governs a particular Class of Organisation. It is true that R116 does not explicitly say of itself that it does not govern the Class of Organisation that Mousetrap purports to belong to, but nor does it say that it does. What then is the situation? Let us consider some other rules first. Perhaps the decision we reach on the question of whether or not they govern Classes of Organisation, and the manner in which we reach this decision will help us decide how to treat R116. Because it appears first in the published ruleset, let us look first at R1020 ("The Official Name of this Nomic shall be Agora.") Does this govern the Class of Organisation to which Mousetrap is supposed to belong? My answer is a ready "no". But then, perhaps this is not so surprising; this is not a particularly regulatory or "governing" rule. It merely states a fact about the "Platonic" nature of our game. Let us move on then. Skipping a few pages we come to R1497 "Truth in Advertising". This is clearly a rule which does govern things. It explicitly sets out to limit and control the behaviour of Players. But does it govern Classes of Organisations? Again, it seems fair to answer "no". Of course, Classes of Organisation are part of the game, and the game's behaviour and development are controlled by its rules as a whole, but it would be a particularly stubborn debater who claimed that R1497 governed Classes of Organisations in any meaningful way. After all, if we were to remove R1497, would the permitted behaviour of Organisations and their Classes change in any way? Again, the answer must be "no". Though the Players involved in Organisations might be able to behave differently in the absence of R1497, the Organisations themselves would not "behave" any differently. But what does it mean for an Organisation (let alone its Class) to "behave"? Permit me, if you will, a digression to investigate the properties of those rules which we can all agree definitely do govern a Class of Organisation. Scrolling backwards from the bottom of the ruleset (as good a direction as any other), I come first to R1455/1 "Contracts". If any rules in the ruleset govern a Class of Organisation, this must be one of them. It begins by explicitly asserting the existence of a Class of Organisations known as Contracts, and then describes a number of properties which all Contracts must share. It would of course be a mistake to conclude that all rules governing Classes of Organisation should look like this one. I will not make that claim, but I will note that this rule does regulate, restrict and clarify the nature of the Contract Class of Organisation. All of these activities (regulation, restriction, &c) are consistent with the commonly understood notion of "governing". Consider the Hypertext Webster's definition of "govern" (available at http://c.gp.cs.cmu.edu:5103/prog/webster?govern): gov.ern \'g*v-*rn\ \-*r-n*-b*l\ vb [ME governen, fr. OF governer, fr. L gubernare to steer, govern, fr. Gk kybernan 1a: to exercise continuous sovereign authority over; esp : to control and direct the making and administration of policy in 1b: to rule without sovereign power usu. without having the authority to determine basic policy archaic 2a: MANIPULATE 2b: to control the speed of by automatic means 3a: to control, direct, or strongly influence the actions and conduct of 3b: DETERMINE, REGULATE 3c: to hold in check : RESTRAIN 4 : to require (a word) to be in a certain case or mood {in English a transitive verb ~s a noun in the common case} 5 : to constitute a rule or law for 1: to prevail or have decisive influence : CONTROL 2: to exercise authorityrolling(sic) others. GOVERN implies the aim of keeping in a straight course or smooth operation for the good of the individual and the whole; RULE more often suggests the exercise of despotic or arbitrary power ----- Clearly the first meaning given above is the meaning that applies to bodies in government, parliaments, congresses, sovereigns etc. Its relevance to rules is minimal. Meaning 1b is archaic and similar in scope (though opposite in meaning!) to 1a in any case. Meanings 2a and 2b do not seem to have much relevance in the abstract world of rules. Meanings 3a,b and c do seem to be relevant. Meaning 4 is clearly irrelevant. Meaning 5 with its subclauses also seems quite relevant. Perhaps now we can approach R116 "Permissibility of the Unprohibited". Its one sentence deserves full reproduction here: "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it." Does this rule govern Classes of Organisation? If it does, then it could be said to permit Mousetrap's jurisdiction to extend over Player Swann. If it does not, then even a brief inspection of the Ruleset will not reveal any other rule that even comes close to permitting this to happen. My answer to this important question is a (tentative) "no". It is not clear to me that R116 does any of the things that accord with our understanding of the word "govern". Does it control, direct, or strongly influence the action and conduct of Classes of Organisations? The only sense in which this might be said to happen, would be if we first assumed that it was a rule that did so govern, because it might then have an influence through rules such as R1530. But this would be a circular argument and of no merit therefore. A simple examination of its words reveals that by contrast, R116 "permits" and (allow me a horrible neologism) "unregulates". If anything, this activity is the precise opposite of what we should expect from something that "governs". Therefore I conclude that R116 does not govern Mousetrap's Class of Organisation (even assuming that it exists). Judgement ends. Michael. ======================================================================== Evidence: Message #233 (239 is last): Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 09:24:57 EST5 >From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin) Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Elections To: jlc@camex.com Cc: gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au, gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu Most Honourable Triumvir elJefe! In accordance with Rule 1457, I hereby report that I believe that the Compact of the Mousetrap Organization has been Violated, to wit: Statute 9 of the Mousetrap Compact states, and I quote: 9. The Player Swann shall not accept the Office of Notary. Should Swann become Notary by any means, e shall immediately resign that Office, naming any one of the Triumvirs as eir Successor, at Swann's choice. Swann, however, has accepted the Office of Notary, in contravention with this Compact, and further failed to resign the Office immediately as required by this Statute. Thus, Swann is in Criminal Violation of this Statute and thus the Compact generally. Swann became subject to the Jurisdiction of the Compact of the Mousetrap on 25 Oct 1995 at 14:52 UTC, upon the adoption of a Proscription extending the Jurisdiction of the Mousetrap to all Players, as duly reported to the Acting Notary at that time. I quote from Swann's message to the Public Forum to illustrate his abject comtempt for the Statutes: "Steven" == Steven A Swiniarski writes: Steven> I hereby accept the Office &c. Respectfully submitted this 30th Day of October, Nineteen Hundred and Ninety-Five, Kelly Martin Speaker and Triumvir of Agora Nomic -- kelly martin ======================================================================= Rule 1530/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Compacts: Jurisdiction The Jurisdiction of an Organization's Compact is a subset of the set of all Players. A Compact has no force to require, or oblige, anything of Players who are not within its Jurisdiction. (This does not absolve any Players of duties required of them by the Rules.) Within its Jurisdiction, a Compact's ability to dictate Players' activity is limited to the extent permitted by the Rules. A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization. No Compact may have effect prior to its Creation, nor may it have effect subsequent to its dissolution. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing Compacts. History: Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995 ======================================================================== Rule 719/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Joining a Group A Player not affiliated with any Group may become a Member of a Group at any time after creation of the Group, subject to the following restrictions: i) Membership procedures in the Ordinances are void if they conflict with the Rules. ii) No Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir sending a request for Membership to the Vizier of that Group. iii) A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group. Other Rules, and the Ordinances, may Provide additional Restrictions on Membership. History: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995 ======================================================================= A Contest's Regulations consist only of Statutes, any one of which is referred to as a Regulation. No Player within Jurisdiction of a Contest's Regulations is bound by a Regulation or combination of Regulations that conflict with the Rules. The Regulations can specify the following: i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become Contestmaster without eir consent. If left unspecified, the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists. ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent. If this is not specified, they may only be spent when the Rules require it. iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of units of any specific Currency. iv) Additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants, and conditions under which Contestants cease to be Contestants. A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund. A Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the Contestmaster. A Contestmaster may resign at any time by posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which time e ceases to be Contestmaster. ======================================================================== Rule 1455/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Contracts Let there be a class of Organization known as a Contract, whose Compact can also be referred to as a Contract. A Contract consists only of Warranties, which are known as its Terms, the Players within its Jurisdiction are known as the Parties to the Contract, and the Administrator for all Contracts is the Notary. Contracts do not possess Treasuries, nor do they possess Executors. Contracts have the legal force to impose penalties upon Parties that do not abide by the Terms of the Contract. Parties that are unwilling or unable to abide by the Terms are said to be in Breach of the Contract. A Contract may specify the following: i) What actions the parties to the contract are required to perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force. ii) What penalties are imposed upon a party who Breaches the Contract. The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the Contract. In addition to what other Rules require them to provide to the Notary, the Foundors must also specify the following information: i) The identity of each Party to the Contract, each of whom must be named in the Terms of the Contract itself. Providing a unique Name for the Contract is optional, this takes precedence over the general requirements for information provided. If no Name is provided, the Notary must provide a unique Name for the Contract and provide this Name to all Parties. Parties can then change the Name as provided for in the Contract or in other Rules. A Contract is Private, and the Notary shall send a notification to all the Parties of a Contract As Soon As Possible after it has been legally entered into. The Contract shall be in force no sooner than the moment of that notification. A Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in accordance with its Terms, or one or more of the Parties of the Contract ceases to be a Player, or the Contract is breached as described elsewhere. When a Contract is changed (including any change in the Parties) a current Party to the Contract must inform the Notary of the change as soon as possible after it occurs. If a Party is being added to, or removed from, the Contract, the change only has effect if _that_ Party sends the notification. The Notary shall forward this notification of change to all current Parties of the Contract As Soon As Possible thereafter. ====================================================================== Rule 1499/1 (Mutable, MI=1) Bearerbonds A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules for a Contract, except: In the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as Bearer, or Party of the First Part and Party of the Second Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever), rather than being identified as a specific Player. At all times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the Player associated with a particular Role is known as the Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond. All the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each Role in the Bearerbond. All these statements must be identical. To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which Bearerbond is involved (the notary may assign identifying names to Bearerbonds, or otherwise impose identification mechanisms as e sees fit). Unless the Bearerbond specifies otherwise, the Rolebearer for any Role may be changed in this way at any time. When any Rolebearer in a Bearerbond changes, the Notary shall notify all parties to the Bearerbond of the fact of the change, the Role involved, and the identity of the new Bearer. The change of Rolebearer takes effect when the Notary sends this notification. All Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the Bearerbond. When the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the Bearerbond, unless e is explicitly named in the Bearerbond itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it. History: Created by Proposal 1676, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995 ======================================================================== Evidence (added by pro-Justiciar) : Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3) Permissibility of the Unprohibited Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it.