======================================================================
                               CFJ 904

"The Player known as Antimatter currently possesses the Patent Title
 of Agoraphobe."

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

Judge:       Oerjan

Judgement:   TRUE

Eligible:    Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe, favor, General Chaos,
             Harlequin, KoJen, Macross, Michael, Morendil, Murphy,
             Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram

Not eligible:
Caller:      Antimatter
Barred:      -
On hold:     Andre

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

History:
  Called by Antimatter, Sun, 23 Feb 1997 22:17:51 -0800
  Assigned to Oerjan, Tue, 25 Feb 1997 10:50:03 +0000
  Judged TRUE, Mon, 3 Mar 1997 21:18:11 +0100 (MET)
  Published, Tue, 4 Mar 1997 10:33:15 +0000

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

Judgement: TRUE

Reasons and arguments:

The problem here seems to be in the Rules not defining the Patent
Title of Agoraphobe. By 1586 the Patent Title was destroyed when the
original Rule was repealed.

However, the Directive which intended to give Antimatter the Patent
Title of Agoraphobe was passed after this repeal, and so the question
is whether 649 is enough to cause its recreation.

In other words, while this issue was only raised when Antimatter
became a Player, the real question is whether he ever had the Patent
Title in the first place. I agree that it is not the case that the
Patent Title was removed when he became a Player.

Does 649, like 1044 does, create the awarded Patent Title if it does
not exist? In the last paragraph it, unlike 1044, caters to the
possibility that the Patent Title might have been created elsewhere.

However I find that the second paragraph is enough to implicitly
create a Patent Title if it does not exist.

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

Evidence:

Rule 649/5 (MI=1)
Patent Titles

      Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title.  A
      Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a
      Directive awarding the Title to that Person.  Such a Directive
      must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it
      is to be awarded.

      If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be
      known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive
      fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent
      Title for a period of 4 weeks.

      If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another
      method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take
      precedence over this Rule.

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

Rule 1044/4 (MI=1)
Unique Patent Titles

      There shall be a subset of Patent Titles known as Unique Patent
      Titles.  A Unique Patent Title is awarded to a single person, at
      the same time as the creation of the Unique Patent Title; no
      other person may ever hold that Patent Title.

      A Unique Patent Title is created and awarded by a Directive to
      award the Unique Patent Title to the specified Player.  Such a
      Directive shall clearly state the Unique Patent Title to be
      awarded, that said Title is Unique, and the person who shall
      receive the Unique Title.

      The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Unique Patent Titles
      as part of the Gold Pages.

Rule 1586/1 (MI=1)
Definition and Continuity of Entities

      A "Nomic Entity" is any entity which has no discernible
      existence without the Rules, only existing by virtue of the
      Rules defining it to exist.  No two Nomic Entities (including
      Players) shall have the same name or nickname.

      When the Rules defining a given Nomic Entity are repealed or
      amended such that they no longer define that entity, that entity
      ceases to exist, along with any properties it may have
      possessed.

      When the Rules defining a given Nomic Entity are amended such
      that they still define the Entity but in a different way or with
      different properties, that entity and its properties continue to
      exist to whatever extent is possible under the new definition.

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

(Caller's) Arguments:

Rule 649 specifies that Patent Titles are Nomic Entities, and
specifies a means of awarding a Patent Title to a person. Rul1 649
does not state that only those Patent Titles defined by the rules
exist. Sinc I was awarded the Patent Title of Agoraphobe by Proposal
2753, and no Rule has caused the title to be take from me, I still
have the title.

Evidence:
[Exhibit A: Proposal 2753]
Proposal 2753 by Chuck
KoJen Doesn't Like This Non-Descriptive Proposal Title

This Proposal contains zero proposed Rule Changes and one Directive.

I. Ross Morgan-Linial shall be awarded the Patent Title of Agoraphobe.

[The patent title of Agoraphobe is no longer defined by the Rules,
but Rule 649 provides a clear procedure for awarding patent titles,
and does *not* state that only those patent titles defined by the
Rules exist.]

[Exhibit B: Rule 649]
Rule 649/5 (MI=1)
Patent Titles

      Let there be a Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title.  A
      Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by means of a
      Directive awarding the Title to that Person.  Such a Directive
      must clearly specify the Patent Title, and the person to whom it
      is to be awarded.

      If the Directive is adopted, the person in question shall be
      known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Directive
      fails, that person may not be nominated for the same Patent
      Title for a period of 4 weeks.

      If the Rule which creates the Patent Title specifies another
      method of assigning the Patent Title, then that Rule shall take
      precedence over this Rule.

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