[This file contains all known texts of all known rules. NOT A SOURCE FILE: automatically generated, do not edit. NOT A PRIMARY SOURCE: if you're researching ruleset history, look at the rulesets themselves. This file incorporates corrections that could be mistaken. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 101 history: Initial Immutable Rule 101, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable). text: All players must always abide by all the rules then in effect, in the form in which they are then in effect. The rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of rules 101-116 (immutable) and 201-219 (mutable). history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, 15 March 1995 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), 27 September 1999 text: All Players must always abide by all the Rules currently in effect, in the form in which they are currently in effect. However, a Player besides the Speaker may always deregister rather than continue to play. Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by the Rules is permitted and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules, which is permitted only when the Rules explicitly or implicitly permit it. Any change to the game state which would make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the Rules by any combination of actions by Players does not occur, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. The Rules in the Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game. The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and 201-219 (Mutable). history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 text: Any player is permitted to perform an action which is not regulated. An action is regulated if: (a) the action is prohibited; (b) the rules indicate that if certain conditions are satisfied, then some player is permitted to perform the action; (c) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor; (d) the action would, as part of its effect, make it impossible to make arbitrary modifications to the rules by any combinations of actions by players; or (e) the courts have held that the action is regulated, and this finding has not been overturned. A player besides the Speaker is always permitted to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em. iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absense of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to view. vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora. vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absense of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em. iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absense of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora. vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em. iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora. vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 text: The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or judicial order binding em. iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora. vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 text: The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or privileges. Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or remove a person's defined rights. A person's defined privileges are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding agreement to the contrary. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or privileges. i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt. ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is not regulated. iii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved. Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished. iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit, willful consent shall be considered a refusal. v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to review. vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora. vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than once for any single action or inaction. viii. Every player has the right to deregister rather than continue to play. Please treat Agora right good forever. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 102 history: Initial Immutable Rule 102, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Initially Rules in the 100's are Immutable and Rules in the 200's are Mutable. Rules subsequently Enacted or Transmuted (that is, changed from Immutable to Mutable or vice versa) may be Immutable or Mutable regardless of their Numbers, and Rules in the Initial Set may be Transmuted regardless of their Numbers. text: Initially rules in the 100's are immutable and rules in the 200's are mutable. Rules subsequently enacted or transmuted (that is, changed from immutable to mutable or vice versa) may be immutable or mutable regardless of their numbers, and rules in the Initial Set may be transmuted regardless of their numbers. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 103 history: Initial Immutable Rule 103, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: At any time, each Player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no Player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time, there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term "Player" in the Rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. text: At any time, each Player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no Player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time, there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term "Player" in the Rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. text: At any time, each player shall be either a Voter or the Speaker; no player may simultaneously be a Voter and a Speaker. At any time there shall be exactly one Speaker. The term "player" in the rules shall specifically include both the Voters and the Speaker. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, 15 March 1995 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999 text: At any time, there is exactly one Player who is the Speaker. The Speaker may not deregister or be deregistered for any reason, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. history: Retitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 text: There should always be exactly one player who is the Speaker. No one other than a player can be Speaker, and there can never be more than one Speaker. If there is ever no Speaker then the player whose most recent registration was earliest becomes the Speaker. history: Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 history: Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 text: The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker's behalf. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 text: The Speaker is an imposed office. The Speaker is the figurehead of Agora, embodying its spirit. Diplomatic missions from Agora to foreign nomics operate on the Speaker's behalf. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 104 history: Initial Immutable Rule 104, 30 June 1993 text: The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, 15 March 1995 history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 105,1072 history: Initial Immutable Rule 105, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: A Rule Change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable Rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable Rule into a mutable Rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new Rules are Mutable; Immutable Rules, as long as they are Immutable, may not be Amended or Repealed; Mutable Rules, as long as they are Mutable, may be Amended or Repealed; any Rule of any status may be Transmuted; no Rule is absolutely immune to change.) text: A Rule Change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable Rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable Rule into a mutable Rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new Rules are Mutable; Immutable Rules, as long as they are Immutable, may not be Amended or Repealed; Mutable Rules, as long as they are Mutable, may be Amended or Repealed; any Rule of any status may be Transmuted; no Rule is absolutely immune to change.) text: A rule change is any of the following: (1) the enactment, repeal, or amendment of a mutable rule; or (2) the transmutation of an immutable rule into a mutable rule or vice versa. (Note: This definition implies that, at least initially, all new rules are mutable; immutable rules, as long as they are immutable, may not be amended or repealed; mutable rules, as long as they are mutable, may be amended or repealed; any rule of any status may be transmuted; no rule is absolutely immune to change.) history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, 4 October 1994 history: Amended by Proposal 1275, 24 October 1994 text: A Rule Change is any of the following: 1) the enactment of a new Rule (a "Creation"). ; 2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an "Amendment"); 3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a "Repeal"); 4) the modification of an existing Rule's Mutability Index (a "Mutation"). Additional Rule Changes may be created by appropriate legislation. No Rule Change may directly change any part of the Game State other than the Rules. No Rule may be changed except by the means of a Rule Change of a type specified in the Rules. history: Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, 1 November 1994 history: Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997 text: A Rule Change is any of the following: * The enactment of a new Rule; * The repeal of an existing Rule; * The amendment of the text of an existing Rule; or * Any change to a substantive property of a Rule other than its text. A "substantive property of a Rule" is any property of that Rule (other than its text) which determines in part or in full the ability of that Rule to govern by itself or in conjunction with other Rules. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: A proposal generally can, as part of its effect: (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit. (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, modified, or repealed. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4886 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: A proposal generally can, as part of its effect: (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit. (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace, capitalization, or substitution of section labels with the same ordinal position (e.g. 1 / a / i, 2 / b / ii, etc.) in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. (c) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, modified, or repealed. history: Repealed as Power=3 Rule 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 105,2131 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 2131 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 text: A proposal generally can, as part of its effect: (a) Enact a rule. When enacted, rules have Power 1. (b) Assign a number to a rule. (c) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. (d) Repeal a rule. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. history: Renumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 history: Retitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 text: A proposal generally can, as part of its effect: (a) Enact a rule. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned. If the enacting proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit. (b) Modify the power, title, or text of a rule. A Proposal can modify the power, title, or text of a rule with power no greater than its own. However, a proposal cannot cause a rule to have power greater than its own. Any ambiguity in a modification specified by a proposal causes that modification to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. (c) Repeal a rule. A Proposal can repeal a rule with power no greater than its own. When a proposal repeals a rule, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted, modified, or repealed. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 text: Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect, (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void. (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. (c) amend the text of a rule. (d) retitle a rule. (e) change the power of a rule. A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: Where permitted by other rules, an instrument generally can, as part of its effect, (a) enact a rule. The new rule has power equal to the minimum of the power specified by the enacting instrument, defaulting to one if the enacting instrument does not specify, and the maximum power permitted by other rules. The enacting instrument may specify a title for the new rule, which if present shall prevail. The ID number of the new rule cannot be specified by the enacting instrument; any attempt to so specify is null and void. (b) repeal a rule. When a rule is repealed, it ceases to be a rule, and the Rulekeepor need no longer maintain a record of it. (c) amend the text of a rule. (d) retitle a rule. (e) change the power of a rule. A rule change is any effect that falls into the above classes. Rule changes always occur sequentially, never simultaneously. Any ambiguity in the specification of a rule change causes that change to be void and without effect. A variation in whitespace or capitalization in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be created, modified, or destroyed, or by which an entity can become a rule or cease to be a rule. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 106,1073 history: Initial Immutable Rule 106, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: All Rule Changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and Quorum is achieved. text: All Rule Changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and Quorum is achieved. text: All rule changes proposed in the proper way shall be voted on. They will be adopted if and only if they receive the required number of votes and quorum is achieved. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, 4 October 1994 history: Amended by Proposal 1278, 24 October 1994 text: All Proposals made in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. history: Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, 1 November 1994 history: Infected but not Amended by Rule 1454, 7 May 1995 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), 3 May 1998 text: All Proposals made and distributed in the proper way shall be voted upon. A Proposal shall be adopted if and only if it receives the required number of votes and if Quorum is achieved. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker. The default adoption index of a proposal is one. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Speaker. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of 1 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and by default, the eligible voters are the active players, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a default and minimum value of 1.0. Before the Promotor distributes a proposal, its proposer may modify its adoption index by announcement. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. The proposer of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the available options are FOR, AGAINST, and PRESENT, and the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All other Proposals are Democratic. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1, with a minimum value of 1.0. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008 text: A proposal is a document outlining changes to be made to Agora, including enacting, repealing, or amending rules, or making other explicit changes to the gamestate. A player submits a proposal by publishing it with a clear indication that it is intended to become a proposal, which places the proposal in the Proposal Pool. That player is its author (syn. proposer). The author of a proposal may remove it from the Pool by announcement. A person is a co-author of a proposal if and only if e is distinct from its author, and unambiguously identified by its author as being its co-author at the time of submission. The adoption index of a proposal is an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. It may be set by the proposer at the time of submission, or otherwise defaults to 1.0. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the adoption index is the adoption index of the proposal, and the vote collector is the Assessor. If the option selected by Agora on this decision is ADOPTED, then the proposal is adopted, and unless other rules prevent it from taking effect, its power is set to the minimum of four and its adoption index, and then it takes effect. It does not otherwise take effect. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would permit a proposal to take effect. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 107 history: Initial Immutable Rule 107, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. text: Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. text: Any proposed rule change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in print media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, 24 January 1995 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), 9 August 1999 text: Any proposed Rule Change must be written down (or otherwise communicated in valid media) before it is voted on. If adopted, it must guide play in the form in which it was voted on. For the purposes of this rule, print and electronic media, including mailing lists, are valid media. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain the following information: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the election for Scorekeepor" or "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) The identity of the vote collector. (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. To be valid, this notice must contain the following information: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) The identity of the vote collector. (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) The identity of the vote collector. (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) The identity of the vote collector. (d) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) A clear indication of the options available. (d) The identity of the vote collector. (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would require a voting period for some decision to be shorter than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) A clear indication of the options available. (d) The identity of the vote collector. (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days, unless the decision is whether to approve a dependent action. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) A clear indication of the options available. (d) The identity of the vote collector. (e) Any additional information required by the rules for this announcement. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 text: An Agoran decision is initiated when a person authorized to initiate it publishes a valid notice which sets forth the intent to initiate the decision. This notice is invalid if it lacks any of the following information, and the lack is correctly identified within one week after the notice is published: (a) The matter to be decided (for example, "the adoption of proposal 4781"). (b) A description of the class of eligible voters sufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible. In particular, an explicit list of the eligible voters is always sufficient for this purpose. (c) A clear indication of the options available. (d) The identity of the vote collector. (e) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. By default, the voting period lasts for seven days. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the voting period for a decision cannot be shorter than seven days. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 108,1074 history: Initial Immutable Rule 108, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. text: No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. No rule change may have retroactive application. history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 1074 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 1276, 24 October 1994 text: No Rule Change may take effect earlier than the moment of the adoption of the Proposal in which it is contained, if it is a proposed Rule Change, or the moment of the adoption of the current form of the Rule which requires the Rule Change, if it is a non-proposed Rule Change. No Rule Change may have retroactive application. history: Renumbered from 1074 to 108 by Rule 1295, 1 November 1994 history: Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 3572 (Steve), 30 October 1997 text: A given form of a Rule may not have effects earlier than the moment it came to have that form. The form of a Rule consists of its text and other substantive properties. No Rule Change may have retroactive application. history: Repealed as Power=3 Rule 108 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 109,1057,1067 history: Initial Immutable Rule 109, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule Change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted. If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Reenact it. If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it. text: The Speaker shall give each proposed Rule Change a Number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each Rule Change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the Proposal is adopted. If a Rule is Repealed and Reenacted, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Reenact it. If a Rule is Amended or Transmuted, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Amend or Transmute it. text: The Speaker shall give each proposed rule change a number for reference. The numbers shall begin with 301, and each rule change proposed in the proper way shall receive the next successive integer, whether or not the proposal is adopted. If a rule is repealed and reenacted, it receives the number of the proposal to reenact it. If a rule is amended or transmuted, it receives the number of the proposal to amend or transmute it. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1057, 20 September 1994 history: Amended by Proposal 1067, 4 October 1994 text: The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal. When a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number changed, except as specified in the Rules. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 October 1994 text: The Speaker shall give each Proposal which has been proposed in the proper way a Number for reference. The Number assigned to a given Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all Numbers previously assigned, or 301, whichever is greater. No Proposal may have the same Number as any previous Proposal. When a Rule is Created, it receives the Number of the Proposal to Create it. Once created, a Rule shall not have its Number changed, except as specified in the Rules. (*Was: 1057*) history: Renumbered from 1067 to 109 by Rule 1295, 1 November 1994 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1435, 14 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995 text: The Promotor shall give each submitted Proposal a Number for reference. The Number of a Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or 301, whichever is greater. history: Mutated from MI=3 to MI=2 by Proposal 2601, 26 May 1996 history: Amended(3) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), 9 March 1998 text: At the time e distributes it, the Promotor shall give each Proposal a Number for reference. The Number of a Proposal shall be the least integer greater than all other Numbers previously assigned to a Proposal (including numbers assigned to Proposals later determined to have been incorrectly submitted), or 301, whichever is greater. history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 109 by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 110 history: Initial Immutable Rule 110, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Rule Changes that Transmute Immutable Rules into Mutable Rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among Votes legally cast. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a Proposal to take effect. text: Rule changes that transmute immutable rules into mutable rules may be adopted if and only if the vote is unanimous among votes legally cast. Transmutation shall not be implied, but must be stated explicitly in a proposal to take effect. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 111,1076 [History is unresolved for this rule. Not attempting to show texts.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 112 history: Initial Immutable Rule 112, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and Rules that establish a Winner when play cannot continue may be Enacted and (while they are mutable) be Amended or Repealed. text: The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and Rules that establish a Winner when play cannot continue may be Enacted and (while they are mutable) be Amended or Repealed. text: The state of affairs that constitutes winning may not be altered from achieving n points to any other state of affairs. The magnitude of n and the means of earning points may be changed, and rules that establish a winner when play cannot continue may be enacted and (while they are mutable) be amended or repealed. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1268, 19 October 1994 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1451, 1 March 1995 text: Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that Player. If no Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are not ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995 text: Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that Player. If no other Rule defining a way to Win exists, then a Player Wins upon each Winter and Summer Solstice, and upon each Vernal and Autumnal Equinox, with the Winner being chosen randomly by the Speaker from among all Voters not on Hold who are not ineligible to Win because of an applicable Win-preventing Rule. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999 text: Ways for a Player to Win a Game may be defined by other Rules. Also, ways to prevent a Player from Winning a Game may be defined by other Rules. A Player Wins whenever a Win condition defined by one or more of those Rules occurs for that Player, provided that no Win-Preventing conditions are also occurring at that time for that Player. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4377 (Murphy), 11 September 2002 text: A Player is eligible to Win the Game while e meets at least one Win Condition, and does not meet any Win-Preventing Conditions. Any Player may publish a Notice of Victory that lists all Players eligible to Win the Game, and (for each listed Player) identifies at least one Win Condition met by that Player. If this information is accurate, then the listed Players Win the Game. This is the only way to Win the Game. If a Player would otherwise Win the Game due to other Rules, then e instead meets a Win Condition for one week (and may Win the Game as described above). history: Repealed as Power=3 Rule 112 by Proposal 4488 (Peekee), 6 May 2003 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 113 history: Initial Immutable Rule 113, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. text: A Player always has the option to forfeit the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. text: A player always has the option to forfeit the game rather than continue to play or incur a game penalty. No penalty worse than losing, in the judgment of the player to incur it, may be imposed. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1290, 27 October 1994 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1304, 4 November 1994 text: A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999 text: A Player other than the Speaker may always deregister from the Game rather than continue to play or incur a Game penalty. No penalty worse than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur it, may be imposed. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 114,1077 history: Initial Immutable Rule 114, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: There must always be at least one Mutable Rule. The adoption of Rule Changes must never become completely inpermissible. text: There must always be at least one mutable rule. The adoption of rule changes must never become completely inpermissible. history: Power changed from Unanimity to 3 by Proposal 1077 history: Amended by Proposal 1277, 24 October 1994 text: There must always be at least one Rule with a Mutability Index of 1. Any Rule Change which would result in this condition becoming false shall not have any legal force. The Adoption of Rule Changes shall never become completely impermissible. history: Renumbered from 1077 to 114 by Rule 1295, 1 November 1994 history: Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2802 (Zefram; disi.), 8 February 1997 text: It must always be possible to make arbitrary modifications to the ruleset by some combination of player actions. Any change to the gamestate that would cause this condition to become false does not occur, any rule to the contrary notwithstanding. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 115 history: Initial Immutable Rule 115, 30 June 1993 [Have 4 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a Rule. text: Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a Rule. text: Rule Changes that affect Rules needed to allow or apply Rule Changes are as permissible as other Rule Changes. Even Rule Changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No Rule Change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a Rule. text: Rule changes that affect rules needed to allow or apply rule changes are as permissible as other rule changes. Even rule changes that amend or repeal their own authority are permissible. No rule change or type of move is impermissible solely on account of the self-reference or self-application of a rule. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1392, 24 January 1995 history: Repealed as Power=3 Rule 115 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 116 history: Initial Immutable Rule 116, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: 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. text: 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. text: 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. history: Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, 15 March 1995 history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 201,879 history: Initial Mutable Rule 201, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: Quorum for a proposed Rule Change is defined to be 20% of Voters at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. text: Quorum for a proposed Rule Change is defined to be 20% of Voters at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. text: Quorum for a proposed rule change is defined to be 20% of Voters at the beginning of the prescribed voting period for that proposal history: Amended by Proposal 879 (Garth), 13 April 1994 text: Quorum for a Proposal is defined as 35% of all Players, or 50% of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater. Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall use the number of Players or Voters at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: Quorum for a Proposal is defined as 35% of all Players, or 50% of all Voters not On Hold, whichever is greater. Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall use the number of Players or Voters at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. (*Was: 201*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1471, 8 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater. Any determination of whether a Proposal has made Quorum shall use the number of Players or Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. (*Was: 201*) history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, 4 September 1995 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of Registered Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. history: Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 27 July 1996 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of Registered Players at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 2786 (Steve), 15 January 1997 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by 35% of all Players, or 50% of all the Players not On Hold, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by one-third of Active Players, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated using the number of Registered Players, and their Hold statuses (On or Off), at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), 3 August 1998 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by one-third of Active Players not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time. history: Amended(8) by Proposal "A Separation of Powers" (Steve, Without Objection), 20 April 1999 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by one-third of Active Voters not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), 28 December 1999 text: Quorum for a Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on that Proposal by one-third of Active Players not denied voting privileges, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time. Other Rules may provide an explicit method whereby a Player who has not voted on a Proposal may be considered, for the purposes of Quorum, to have voted on that Proposal. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), 14 February 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), 1 March 2000 history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), 1 March 2000 text: Quorum for an Ordinary Proposal is achieved if three Oligarchs cast votes on the Proposal. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal is achieved if a vote is cast on the Proposal by one-third of Active Players who are not Denied on that Proposal, or one-fifth of all Players, whichever is greater. Quorum for a Proposal is calculated at the beginning of the prescribed Voting Period for that Proposal, using information current at that time. However, if an Ordinary Proposal becomes a Democratic Proposal during its Voting Period (or vice versa), then Quorum is recalculated at the time of the change. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000 text: An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on it. A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002 text: An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on it. A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002 text: An Ordinary Proposal achieves Quorum if at least three Oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not Veto it. A Democratic Proposal achieves Quorum if: (1) at least one-third of all Active Noisy Players, or (2) at least one-fifth of all Players cast votes on it. Quorum for a Democratic Proposal shall be determined from the number of Players and number of Active Noisy Players at the time that the Proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a Democratic Proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it. A democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it. Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 text: An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it. A democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it. Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002 text: An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it. A democratic proposal achieves quorum if: (1) at least one third of all active noisy players, or (2) at least one fifth of all non-frozen players cast votes on it. Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of non-frozen players and number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. A Parliamentary Proposal acheives quorum if at least two of the entities with Voting Power on the Proposal are deemed to have cast votes either FOR or AGAINST it. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002 text: (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three oligarchs cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it. (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it. (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 text: (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three shareholders cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it. (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it. (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005 text: (a) An ordinary proposal achieves quorum if at least three players cast votes on it, and the Speaker did not veto it. (b) A democratic proposal achieves quorum if at least one third of all active noisy players cast votes on it. (c) Quorum for a democratic proposal shall be determined from the number of active noisy players at the time that the proposal was distributed, or at the time it was made a democratic proposal, whichever is later. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: The quorum for an Agoran decision is one third the number of eligible voters, rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless there are fewer than five eligible voters, in which case the quorum level is the number of eligible voters). history: Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 text: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which quorum is N). history: Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007 text: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters at the start of the voting period), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which quorum is N). Voters whose voting limit is less than one are not considered eligible for the purposes of this rule. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007 text: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N). history: Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 text: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N, or the decision is whether to approve a dependent action, in which case quorum is zero). history: Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 text: Quorum for an Agoran decision is N/3 (where N is the number of eligible voters with a positive voting limit on that decision), rounded up, with a minimum of five (unless this is greater than N, in which case quorum is N). history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 202 history: Initial Mutable Rule 202, 30 June 1993 text: All players begin with 0 points. Points may not be gained, lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the rules. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 203 history: Initial Mutable Rule 203, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: The Winner is the first Voter to achieve 100 (positive) points. If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all such Voters win. When a game ends in this manner: -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter -If there is more than one Winner, the Speaker randomly selects one of the Winners, who becomes the new Speaker, and the old Speaker Speaker becomes a Voter. -All Players' scores are reset to 0. -A new game is begun. All Rules and proposed Rule Changes retain the status they had at the end of the old game. text: The winner is the first Voter to achieve 100 (positive) points. If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all such Voters win. When a game ends in this manner: -If there is only one winner, that Voter becomes the Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter -If there is more than one winner, the Speaker randomly selects one of the winners, who becomes the new Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. -All players' scores are reset to 0. -A new game is begun. All rules and proposed rule changes retain the status they had at the end of the old game. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 204,415,1036 history: Initial Mutable Rule 204, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: A Proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker. Only Voters may make Proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a Proposal, the Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number and distribute the Proposal along with its Number to all Players. text: A proposal shall be made by submitting it to the Speaker. Only Voters may make proposals. As soon as possible after receiving a proposal, the Speaker shall assign the proposal a number and distribute the proposal along with its number to all players history: Amended by Proposal 415 (KoJen), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: A Proposal by a Voter shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number and distribute the Proposal along with its number to all Players. The Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker must process all pending Voter-submitted Proposals first, and may then Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning these Proposals a number and distributing them in the same fashion as any other Proposal. text: A Proposal by a Voter shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number and distribute the Proposal along with its number to all Players. The Mighty Speaker may also make Proposals. The Mighty Speaker must process all pending voter-submitted Proposals first, and may then Process Proposals of the Mighty Speaker, assigning these Proposals a number and distributing them in the same fashion as any other Proposal. history: Amended by Proposal 1036, 21 September 1994 text: A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. history: Amended by Rule 750, 21 September 1994 text: A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Mighty Speaker. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Mighty Speaker shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Speaker shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. (*Was: 415*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1546, 14 April 1995 text: Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute the numbered Proposal to all Players. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2056, 19 December 1995 text: Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 3 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall post the Proposal to the Public Forum accompanied by its Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and its Adoption Index. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2451, 6 February 1996 text: Let there be an Officer called the Promotor. The Promotor shall receive a weekly salary of 5 Points. A Proposal by a Player shall be made by submitting it to the Promotor. As soon as possible after receiving the Proposal, the Promotor shall assign the Proposal a Number. Within seven (7) days of the receipt of the Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall post the Proposal to the Public Forum accompanied by its Number, the name of the Player who Proposed the Proposal, and its Adoption Index. At the same time e shall distribute any text not part of the proposal which is required to be submitted with it, but eir failure to do so shall not deprive the act of distributing the Proposal of the effects which it would otherwise have. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules. Within seven days of the receipt of a Proposal, and not later than any subsequently received Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute this Proposal to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and its Adoption Index. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. history: Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 2829 (Zefram), 7 March 1997 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules. As Soon As Possible after the receipt of the Proposal, the Promotor shall distribute it to the Public Forum, accompanied by its Number, the identity of its Proposing Entity, and a clear indication of whether the Proposal is Disinterested. The failure of the Promotor to distribute any of the above accompaniments with a Proposal does not deprive the distribution of the Proposal of any legal effect. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), 12 February 1998 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall assign to it a Number as specified in other Rules. E shall then place this Proposal on the Proposal Queue. The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed. A Proposal's Priority is an integer value. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero. The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time of proposal, for each proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal's Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not be published. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3706 (Harlequin), 9 March 1998 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue. The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed. A Proposal's Priority is an integer value. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero. The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This publication shall include the number, title, priority, and time of proposal, for each proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal's Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not be published. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3841 (Blob), 15 March 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue. The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed. A Proposal's Priority is an integer multiple of the MUQ of P-Notes. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero. The Promotor shall publish the Proposal Queue weekly. This publication shall include the title, priority, and time of Proposal, for each Proposal in the Queue. If a Proposal's Priority has changed since the Queue was last published, then this change shall also be published. The actual text of the Proposals in the Queue need not be published. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3945 (Peekee), 20 November 1999 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Queue. The Proposal Queue is a list of Proposals, sorted in order of descending Priority. Proposals of the same priority are listed in the order they were proposed. A Proposal's Priority is an integer. All Proposals initially have a Priority of zero. A Proposal's Priority Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ of P-Notes. The base Priority Cost for a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4050 (t), 15 August 2000 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool. A Proposal's Distribution Cost is an integer multiple of the MUQ of Papyri. The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 text: As soon as possible after the Promotor receives a new Proposal, e shall place this Proposal in the Proposal Pool. The base Distribution Cost of a Proposal is 1, but this may be altered by other Rules as long as it remains a positive integer. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1036 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 205,693 history: Initial Mutable Rule 205, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal shall be one week, beginning at the time the Speaker distributes the Proposal to all Players. text: The prescribed voting period for a proposal shall be one week, beginning at the time the Speaker distributes the proposal to all players. history: Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), 12 November 1993 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal shall be seven days, beginning at the time that the Proposal is distributed to all Players. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), 28 April 1995 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players. history: Infected and Amended(2) Substantially by Rule 1454, 14 September 1997 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(3) Substantially by Rule 693, 28 September 1997 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is ten days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), 7 December 1998 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), 3 October 1999 text: The prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning at the time the Proposal is distributed to all Players. Other Rules may specify other Voting Periods for particular types of Proposals. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000 text: The Voting Period for a Proposal is seven days, beginning when the Proposal is distributed. Other Rules may specify other lengths of Voting Periods for particular classes of Proposals. history: Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), 7 August 2000 history: Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the decisionmaking process takes place in the following three stages: (a) Initiation of the decision: The decisionmaking process begins when a person authorized to initiate the decision announces the matter to be decided, including any additional information the rules require to be in that announcement. (b) Voting of the people: Immediately thereafter, the voting period for the decision begins. During the voting period, eligible voters may vote on the matter, as described elsewhere. (c) Resolution of the decision: After the voting period for the decision ends, any person authorized by the rules to resolve the decision may announce that the matter has been decided, specifying the option selected by Agora. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the decisionmaking process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere: (a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: When the rules calls for an Agoran decision to be made, the decision-making process takes place in the following three stages, each described elsewhere: (a) Initiation of the decision. (b) Voting of the people. (c) Resolution of the decision. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 206 history: Initial Mutable Rule 206, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Each Voter has exactly one Vote. The Speaker may not Vote. text: Each Voter has exactly one vote. The Speaker may not vote. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1479, 15 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1553, 14 April 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1565, 28 April 1995 text: Each Player has two votes per Proposal, unless another Rule specifically says otherwise, and no Player 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 a Player's first vote may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, as specified in other Rules. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995 text: 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 Entites 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. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: 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. history: Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 14 November 1995 text: 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: Amended(7) by Proposal 2672, 26 September 1996 text: 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. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2672, 26 September 1996 history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 2817 (Blob), 23 February 1997 text: 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 may only be achieved by the casting of Extra Votes, as specified in other Rules. history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: 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 may only be achieved by the casting of Voting Tokens, as specified in other Rules. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3693 (Steve), 26 February 1998 text: 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. history: ... history: Amended(11) text: 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. 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. history: ... history: Amended(13) text: 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. All players with less than 15 Blots are Voting Entities. Each Voting Entity may cast a number of votes on a Proposal up to the Maximum Votes for that Entity most recently reported in an Accountor's Report at the time the Proposal is distributed. If the Maximum Votes for a Voting Entity has never been published at the time the Proposal is distributed, that Entity may cast up to 5 Votes on that Proposal. history: ... history: Amended(17) text: An entity is permitted to vote on a Proposal if and only if e is a Voter and is not Denied for that Proposal at the time e attempts to cast eir vote. On a Democratic Proposal, each entity which is permitted to vote on that Proposal may cast a number of votes up to their Maximum Votes as shown in the most recently published Accountor's Report at the time that the Proposal is distributed, unless other Rules prohibit them from doing so. If the Maximum Votes for a Voter have never been published at the time a Proposal is distributed, their Maximum Votes is 5 for that Proposal. All Players are Voters. However, a Player is Denied for all Proposals while e has more than 3 Blots. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 207,683 history: Initial Mutable Rule 207, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Voters may Vote either FOR or AGAINST any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed Voting Period. The Speaker may not reveal any Votes until the end of the prescribed Voting Period. Any Voter who does not legally Vote within the prescribed Voting Period shall be deemed to have abstained. text: Voters may vote either for or against any proposal within its prescribed voting period. In order to be legally cast, the vote must be received by the Speaker by the end of the prescribed voting period. The Speaker may not reveal any votes until the end of the prescribed voting period. Any Voter who does not legally vote within the prescribed voting period shall be deemed to have abstained. history: Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), 10 November 1993 text: Voters may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Speaker during the prescribed Voting Period. The Speaker will reveal the Votes cast by each Voter only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, 8 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995 text: Players may cast of a Vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN for any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, the Vote must be received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting Period. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Player only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995 text: Voting Entities may cast a vote of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN on any Proposal within its prescribed Voting Period. In order to be legally cast, a vote by a Player or a Group must be received by the Counting Assessor or posted to the Public Forum during the prescribed Voting Period. The conditions under which a Vote by a Voting Entity which is not a Player or a Group (if any such exist) is legally cast are described in other Rules. The Assessor will reveal the Votes cast by each Voting Entity only after the prescribed Voting Period has ended. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, 1 May 1996 text: A Vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a Vote upon a Proposal. A Vote cast upon a Proposal by a Voting Entity which has an Executor is cast at the time its Executor either posts it to the Public Forum or otherwise sends it to the Assessor. A Vote is legally cast if it is cast during the Voting Period of that Proposal, and if that Voting Entity is entitled to cast a Vote on that particular Proposal. A Vote cast by a Voting Entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules. This Rule in no way authorizes any Entity to cast Votes upon Proposals. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), 3 April 1998 text: A Voting Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. A vote cast by a Voting Entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules. This Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon Proposals. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), 31 October 1999 text: an Entity votes upon a Proposal when, during the Voting Period of that Proposal, e informs the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting upon that Proposal, provided that e is authorized to cast those votes on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voting Entity which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. A vote cast by an Entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules. This Rule in no way authorizes any entity to cast votes upon Proposals. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), 14 February 2000 text: A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. A vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001 text: A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be cancelled as other Rules require. A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005 text: A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is casting on that Proposal. A Voter may change or cancel eir vote or votes during the Voting Period by informing the Assessor. A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal. history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the voting period for the decision. (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period. The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option. Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the constraints specified by this rule. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 text: An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission. (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period. The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option. Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the constraints specified by this rule. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 text: An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the time of submission. (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the voting period. Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the entity's voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is one, except where rules say otherwise. The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots selecting that option. Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the constraints specified by this rule. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 208 history: Initial Mutable Rule 208, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on a Proposal, the Speaker shall reveal all Votes legally cast on that Proposal. If the Speaker's consent may be required for a Proposal to be adopted then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to consent to the Proposal, it shall be assumed that e consents. text: At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on a Proposal, the Speaker shall reveal all Votes legally cast on that Proposal. If the Speaker's consent may be required for a Proposal to be adopted then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to consent to the Proposal, it shall be assumed that e consents. text: At the end of the prescribed voting period on a proposal, the Speaker shall reveal all votes legally cast on that proposal. If the Speaker's consent may be required for a proposal to be adopted, then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to consent to the proposal, it shall be assumed that e consents. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1401, 29 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995 text: As soon as possible after the end of the Voting Period on a given Proposal, the Assessor shall publish all the Votes cast upon that Proposal. history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: The vote collector for a particular Agoran decision is authorized to resolve that decision, and does so by publishing a valid notice which states that the matter has been resolved, indicating the option selected by Agora. To be valid, this notice must satisfy the following conditions: (a) It is published after the voting period has ended. (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. (c) It clearly identifies the options available. (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision shall have at most one vote collector at a time. The identity of the vote collector is set by the message initiating the decision, and can only be changed as specified by other rules with power at least as great as that of this rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 text: The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions: (a) It is published after the voting period has ended. (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. (c) It clearly identifies the options available. (d) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 text: The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision may resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. E SHALL do so as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions: (a) It is published after the voting period has ended. (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008 text: The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions: (a) It is published after the voting period has ended. (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 text: The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the option selected by Agora. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it as soon as possible after the end of the voting period. To be valid, this announcement must satisfy the following conditions: (a) It is published after the voting period has ended. (b) It clearly identifies the matter to be resolved. (c) It specifies which option was selected by Agora, as described elsewhere, and provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots on the various options. Each Agoran decision has exactly one vote collector, defaulting to the initiator of the decision. If the vote collector is defined by reference to a position (or, in the default case, if the initiator was so defined), then the vote collector is the current holder of that position. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would provide another mechanism by which an Agoran decision may be resolved. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 209,396,658,761,955 history: Initial Mutable Rule 209, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: The required Votes for a Proposal to be adopted is as follows: For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker: a) a simple majority of all Votes legally cast, if the Speaker consents; b) a 2/3 majority of all Votes legally cast, if the Speaker does not consent; For all other Proposals, a simple majority of Votes legally cast. This Rule defers to Rules which set the required number of Votes for Proposals which propose to transmute a Rule. text: The required votes for a proposal to be adopted is as follows: For a proposal which would directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker: a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the Speaker consents; b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the Speaker does not consent; For all other proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast. This rule defers to rules which set the required number of votes for proposals which propose to transmute a rule. history: Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), 23 August 1993 text: The required votes for a Proposal to be adopted is as follows: For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker: a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the Mighty Speaker consents; b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the Mighty Speaker does not consent; For all other Proposals, a simple majority of votes legally cast. In case of a tie in a simple-majority Vote, the Mighty Speaker may, but is not required to, cast a tie-breaking Vote. The Mighty Speaker receives no Point awards or penalties for doing so. This Rule defers to rules which set the required Number of Votes for Proposals which propose to Transmute a Rule. history: Amended by Proposal 658, 29 October 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 761, 8 December 1993 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. If a Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall take effect. If such a Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take effect. If a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes the Proposal. history: Amended by Rule 750, 8 December 1993 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. If a Proposal is not Contested, and there are more FOR votes cast then AGAINST votes, then that Proposal shall take effect. If such a Proposal has an equal number of FOR and AGAINST Votes, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if that Proposal shall fail. If the Proposal is Contested, and the number of FOR votes cast is at least twice the number of AGAINST votes cast, then that Proposal shall take effect. If a Rule will change the actions required of or forbidden to the Speaker, and the Speaker opposed the Proposal, then that Proposal shall be considered Contested. The Speaker shall declare if e opposes the Proposal when e distributes the Proposal. (*Was: 658*) history: Amended by Proposal 955 (Garth), 25 July 1994 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. Let the number of Votes in favor of a Proposal divided by the number of Votes opposed to that Proposal be known as the Voting Factor for that Proposal. If the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal shall be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if the Proposal shall fail. The Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be 1, unless otherwise specified in the Rules. An Adoption Factor of unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor. history: Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. Let the number of Votes in favor of a Proposal divided by the number of Votes opposed to that Proposal be known as the Voting Factor for that Proposal. If the Voting Factor exceeds the mandated Adoption Factor for a given Proposal, then that Proposal shall be Adopted. If the Voting Factor exactly equals the required Adoption Factor, then the Speaker shall decide whether the Proposal shall be Adopted, or if the Proposal shall fail. The Adoption Factor for all Proposals shall be 1, unless otherwise specified in the Rules. An Adoption Factor of unanimity is a special case: It is defined as an absence of Votes in opposition, with at least one Vote in favor. (*Was: 761*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, 24 October 1994 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Speaker. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Speaker shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the given Proposal, then that Proposal shall pass. If the Voting Index exactly equals the Adoption Index, then the Assessor shall choose whether the Proposal passes or fails. If the Voting Index is less than the Adoption Index, the Proposal shall fail. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, 6 October 1995 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the Votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: the Proposal received no Votes opposed, and at least one Vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no Votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of Votes in favor divided by the number of Votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the given Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, then that Proposal passes. Otherwise, it fails. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, 20 January 1996 history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), 16 April 1998 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed, and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), 21 December 1998 text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes opposed, and at least one vote in favor, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes in favor, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes in favor divided by the number of votes opposed. If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal, or if both equal Unanimity, and there were at least three votes in favor of the Proposal, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal may not be adopted (synonymous with the Proposal passing) except as described in this Rule. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002 text: (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against. (b) If the Voting Index is greater than the Adoption Index for the Proposal (or if both equal Unanimity), and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against. (b) If the Voting Index is greater than or equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002 text: (a) When the Voting Period for a Proposal has ended, the uncancelled votes which have been legally cast shall be counted by the Assessor. The Proposal shall then be assigned a Voting Index, as follows: if the Proposal received no votes against, and at least one vote for, the Voting Index shall be Unanimity; if there are no votes for, the Voting Index shall be zero; in all other cases, the Voting Index shall be the number of votes for divided by the number of votes against. (b) If the Voting Index is greater than one, and greater than or equal to the Adoption Index for the Proposal, and if Quorum for the Proposal is achieved, then that Proposal is adopted. Otherwise, it fails. (c) A Proposal may not have its Voting Index set except as described in this Rule. A Proposal cannot be adopted except as described in this Rule. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended. (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to invalidate, and no others. (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal or referendum, e shall determine the voting index as follows: (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise, (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED. (d) If the decision is an election, then as long as quorum is achieved, the vote collector has the privilege to choose any option the strength of which meets or exceeds that of any other option to be the option selected by Agora. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: To determine which option on a particular Agoran decision was selected by Agora, the vote collector shall perform the following steps in order after the voting period has ended. (a) E shall invalidate any ballots which the rules require em to invalidate, and no others. (b) E shall count the number of distinct voters who submitted ballots which remain valid. If this number is less than the quorum and there is more than one available option, then the option selected by Agora is FAILED QUORUM. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (c) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, e shall determine the voting index as follows: (1) if the strength of FOR is positive and the strength of AGAINST is zero, then the voting index is Unanimity; but (2) if the strength of FOR is zero, then the voting index is zero; otherwise, (3) the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index exceeds one and meets or exceeds the adoption index of the decision, and if further quorum was achieved, then the option selected by Agora is ADOPTED. Otherwise, the option selected by Agora is REJECTED. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 text: The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows. (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (b) If the decision is whether to adopt a proposal, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action: (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to the majority index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 text: The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows. (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. (d) If the decision is whether to approve a dependent action: (1) If the strength of OBJECT is greater than or equal to the objection index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (2) If the strength of SUPPORT is less than the support index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (3) If the ratio of the strength of SUPPORT to the combined strength of SUPPORT and OBJECT is less than or equal to the majority index (if any), then the outcome is REJECTED. (4) Otherwise, the outcome is APPROVED. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 text: The outcome of an Agoran decision is determined as follows. (a) If there is more than one available option, and the number of distinct voters who submitted valid ballots is less than quorum, then the outcome is FAILED QUORUM, regardless of the remainder of this rule. Otherwise, the decision achieved quorum. (b) If the decision is ordinary or democratic, then the voting index is the ratio of the strength of FOR to the strength of AGAINST. If the voting index is greater than 1, and greater than or equal to the decision's adoption index, then the outcome is ADOPTED; otherwise, the outcome is REJECTED. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 210,376 history: Initial Mutable Rule 210, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: An adopted Rule Change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the Vote that adopted it. text: An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. history: Amended by Proposal 376 (Ronald Kunne), ca. Aug. 16 1993 text: An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. The moment of the completion of the vote is defined by the date and time given in the line starting with "Date:" of the Nomic listserver message send by the Benevolent Speaker, announcing the result of the vote on the corresponding proposal. history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1271, 24 October 1994 text: A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date- stamped on the first message sent by the Speaker to reach the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that Proposal. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1490, 15 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995 text: A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date- stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that Proposal. If the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at the same time, but in order by increasing Proposal Number. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3842 (Chuck), 15 March 1999 text: A Proposal which is Adopted takes effect at the time date- stamped on the first message sent by the Assessor to reach the Public Forum announcing the results of the voting on that Proposal. If the message sent by the Assessor announcing the results of the voting on a Proposal also contains the results of voting upon other Proposals, all such Proposals shall take effect at the same time, but in the order in which they were distributed. history: Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), 7 August 2000 history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 376 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 [orphaned text: An adopted rule change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it. The moment of the completion of the vote is defined by the date and time given in the line starting with "Date:" of the Nomic listserver message send by the Benevolent Speaker, announcing the result of the vote on the corresponding proposal. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 211 history: Initial Mutable Rule 211, 30 June 1993 text: Voters who voted against proposals which are adopted receive 10 points apiece. Players whose proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Players whose proposals are not adopted shall lose 10 points. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 212,1030 history: Initial Mutable Rule 212, 30 June 1993 [Have 3 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. text: If two or more Mutable Rules conflict with one another, or if two or more Immutable Rules conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lowest ordinal Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. text: If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, or if two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence. If at least one of the rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: Amended by Proposal 1030, 15 September 1994 text: There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices. (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices: Other Rules define the resolution of conflicts between Rules with Mutability Indices of Unanimity and Rules with Mutability Indices of 1. Otherwise, in a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. history: Amended by Rule 750, 15 September 1994 text: There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices. (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices: Other Rules define the resolution of conflicts between Rules with Mutability Indices of Unanimity and Rules with Mutability Indices of 1. Otherwise, in a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, 24 March 1995 text: There are two types of conflicts between rules: (a) conflicts between rules with the same Mutability Indices; (b) conflicts between rules with different Mutability Indices. (a) Conflicts between Rules with the same Mutability Indices: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. (b) Conflicts between Rules with different Mutability Indices: In a conflict between rules with different Mutability Indices, the rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Mutability Index. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, 19 June 1995 text: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, 10 March 1996 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. text: If two or more Rules with the same Mutability Indices conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), 30 November 1996 history: Amended(4) Cosmetically by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997 text: If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower Number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: If two or more Rules with the same Power conflict with one another, then the Rule with the lower ID number takes precedence. If at least one of the Rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another Rule (or type of Rule) or takes precedence over another Rule (or type of Rule), then such provisions shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If all of the Rules in conflict explicitly say that their precedence relations are determined by some other Rule for determining precedence relations, then the determinations of the precedence-determining Rule shall supercede the numerical method for determining precedence. If two or more Rules claim to take precedence over one another or defer to one another, then the numerical method again governs. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 213,407,991 history: Initial Mutable Rule 213, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Speaker. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Speaker must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Speaker must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. text: If players disagree about the legality of a move or the interpretation or application of a rule, then a player may invoke judgement by submitting a statement for judgement to the Speaker. Disagreement, for the purposes of this rule, may be created by the insistence of any player. When judgement is invoked, the Speaker must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Speaker must then distribute the statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all players. history: Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. history: Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) history: Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 23 October 1995 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagrement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. (*Was: 407*) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: If Players disagree about the legality of a Move or the interpretation or application of a Rule, then a Player may invoke Judgement by submitting a Statement for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. Disagreement, for the purposes of this Rule, may be created by the insistence of any Player. When Judgement is invoked, the Clerk of the Courts must, as soon as possible, select a Judge as described in the Rules. The Clerk of the Courts must then distribute the Statement to be judged, along with the identity of the Judge, to all Players. No Player shall submit more than five CFJ's per week. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: Any Player who seeks formal resolution of any dispute pertaining to this Nomic shall be permitted to request such by submitting a Call for Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. For the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission of a Call for Judgement shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute. Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. The Clerk shall distribute the text of a Call for Judgement, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, 19 September 1996 history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001 text: Any person may seek formal resolution of any dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar. Any document submitted to the Clerk of the Courts or Justiciar and which is clearly marked as a Call for Judgement is a Call for Judgement. (Although any CFJ may be filed with the Justiciar, Players are encouraged to file with the CotC unless there is a good reason not to.) For the purpose of this and other Rules, the submission of a CFJ shall constitute proof of the existence of a dispute. The Clerk shall distribute the text of a CFJ along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including, but not limited to, Arguments and Evidence) not later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to Judge it. However, if the CFJ is submitted to the Justiciar, e shall perform all duties of the Clerk of the Courts with respect to that CFJ. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute. A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things. The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by submitting a Call for Judgement (CFJ) to the Clerk of the Courts. The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute. A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 text: Any person may request formal resolution of a dispute pertaining to this Nomic by publishing a Call for Judgement (CFJ). The submission of a CFJ constitutes proof of the existence of such a dispute. A CFJ should be a single clearly-labeled Statement whose truth or falsity can be determined using logical reasoning, assuming perfect knowledge. A CFJ may be accompanied by Arguments, Evidence, or other related material; the Judge is encouraged, but not required, to take notice of these things. history: Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. There are subclasses of judicial case with particular features defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement. Judicial cases other than appeal cases have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 text: A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. A judicial case's subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry. The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement. Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 text: A judicial case, also known as a call for judgement (CFJ), is a procedure to settle a matter of controversy. Each judicial case has exactly one subclass, with particular features as defined by other rules. Subclasses of judicial case exist only as defined by the rules. Defining a subclass of judicial case is secured, with a power threshold of 1.7. A judicial case's subclass CAN be specified by its initiator, or otherwise defaults to inquiry. The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office, responsible for managing judicial activity. The CotC's report includes the status of all judicial cases that either require a judge or have at least one applicable judicial question that has no judgement. Judicial cases (other than appeal cases, which have historically been identified by reference to the prior case) have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Clerk of the Courts. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 214,364,410,586,647,793,890,951 history: Initial Mutable Rule 214, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: If Judgement was invoked by a Voter, then the first Judge to be selected to Judge that Statement shall be the Speaker. If Judgement was invoked by the Speaker, the first Judge to be selected shall be be a randomly selected Voter. In all cases, if a Judge beyond the first must be selected to judge a Statement, it shall be a randomly selected Voter. The Voter thus selected may not be the Player most recently selected as Judge for that Statement, nor may e be the Player who invoked Judgement. text: If judgement was invoked by a Voter, then the first Judge to be selected to judge that statement shall be the Speaker. If judgement was invoked by the Speaker, the first Judge to be selected shall be a randomly selected Voter. In all cases, if a Judge beyond the first must be selected to judge a statement, it shall be a randomly selected Voter. The Voter thus selected may not be the player most recently selected as Judge for that statement, nor may e be the player who invoked judgement. history: Amended by Proposal 364, 8 August 1993 text: When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected from among the Players (excluding the Player who called for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the listserv. Any Player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected Player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. history: Amended by Proposal 410, 26 August 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 586 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 647, 29 October 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 793, ca. Jan. 31 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Jan. 31 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 890 (Garth), 13 April 1994 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge excluding those on hold, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ. Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647*) history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge excluding those on hold, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ. Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647/793*) history: Amended by Proposal 951 (Steve), 25 July 1994 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge excluding those on hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ. Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647/793*) history: Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to be Judge excluding those on hold, barred from Judging said CFJ, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ. Players may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. Upon receiving notice of a Player declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Player. (*Was: 647/793/890*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1306, 4 November 1994 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those: (i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) whose Move the legality of which is to be determined by the CFJ; (v) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (vi) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules. Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1384, 17 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1408, 29 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomply appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those: (i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules. Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player. If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those: (i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules. Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player. If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Player to Judge that CFJ from amongst the Eligible Players. For the purposes of this Rule, the Eligible Players shall be the set of Players excluding those: (i) who are On Hold; (ii) who are Barred from Judging the CFJ; (iii) who made the CFJ; (iv) who have declined to be Appointed as Judge on the CFJ; (v) who are otherwise ineligible to Judge as specified in the Rules. Players may decline to be Appointed as Judge on a particular CFJ by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be Eligible to serve as Judge for that CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. No Blots are gained by the declining Player. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule. If for any reason a Player who has been selected as a Judge of a CFJ becomes ineligible to Judge, either by declining Appointment, by going On Hold, by being deregistered and hence ceasing to be a Player, or by other means specified in the Rules, then the CotC shall randomly select another Eligible Player to Judge the CFJ. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which has been neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made. history: Null-Amended(8) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996 text: Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which has been neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 2553, 22 March 1996 text: Whenever there is a Call for Judgement which is neither Judged nor dismissed, and to which no Player who is eligible to Judge that CFJ is assigned to Judge that CFJ, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select, from amongst those Players eligible, a Judge to be assigned to Judge that CFJ as soon as possible after this condition becomes known to the Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk shall distribute the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made. history: Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 text: Whenever there is an open Call for Judgement to which no Player has been assigned as its Judge, the Clerk of the Court shall, as soon as possible after being made aware of this condition, randomly select a Player to be assigned as its Judge. This selection shall be made from amongst all those Players eligible to serve as the Judge of that CFJ. Once assigned as the Judge of a CFJ, that Player remains the Judge of that CFJ until e is recused from that CFJ, or e ceases to be a Player. The Clerk shall announce the identity of the Player who is assigned to Judge a CFJ as soon as possible after the selection is made. A CFJ is "open" if it has neither been dismissed nor judged, or if there is an outstanding judicial motion pertaining to that CFJ which has been neither granted nor denied. A CFJ which is not open is closed. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 951 by Proposal 3816 (Repeal-O-Matic), 21 December 1998 [orphaned text: Upon receipt of a Call For Judgement (CFJ), the Clerk of the Courts (CotC) shall randomly appoint a Voter to be Judge excluding those on hold, calling for judgement, whose move is under judgement in said CFJ, or have declined appointment on this CFJ. Voters may decline to serve on a particular case by notifying the CotC within 72 hours of appointment. The declining Player shall not be eligible to serve as Judge for this CFJ and shall also lose two points, one of which shall be given to the CotC. Upon receiving notice of a Voter declining to serve the CotC shall randomly appoint a new Judge from eligible Voters. (*Was: 647*) ] [orphaned text: When Judgement has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected by the Clerk of the Courts from among the eligible Players (excluding the Player who called for Judgement). The Player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the listserv. Any Player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected Player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from the remaining pool. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 215,408 history: Initial Mutable Rule 215, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: After the Speaker has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Speaker, who must then distribute that Judgement to all players as soon as possible. text: After the Speaker has distributed the statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected. A judgement is delivered by submitting that judgement to the Speaker, who must then distribute that judgement to all players as soon as possible. history: Amended by Proposal 408 (Alexx), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. text: After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and a new Judge is selected. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1383, 17 January 1995 text: After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e is penalized 10 points and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995 text: After the Clerk of the Courts has distributed the Statement to be judged and the identity of the Judge, the Judge has one week in which to deliver a legal Judgement. If the Judge fails to deliver a Judgement within this time, e gains 3 Blots and the CotC randomly selects another Judge from among eligible Players. A Judgement is delivered by submitting that Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts, who must then distribute that Judgement to all Players as soon as possible. Blots gained via this rule are reported to the Tabulator by the CotC. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits an Infraction to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and breaing bearing a penalty of three Blots. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2587, 1 May 1996 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits an Infraction to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(5) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 14 August 1997 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Rule 408, 28 August 1997 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within seven days of when e was assigned to Judge it. If e fails to do so, e ceases to be eligible to Judge that CFJ, ceases to be assigned to Judge that CFJ, and commits the Infraction of Failing to Judge to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts and bearing a penalty of three Blots. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible prior to the end of the permitted time, e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), 29 December 1997 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it. Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the CotC. At the time of the report of infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner. A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it. Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the CotC. At the time of the report of the Infraction, if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed then the penalty is 1 VT and the Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late. Otherwise the penalty is 3 Blots, and the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner. A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 text: The Player assigned to Judge a Call for Judgement is required to either return a Judgement upon that CFJ or dismiss that CFJ within the assigned deliberation period, which ends seven days after e is assigned to Judge it. Failure to do so is the Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the CotC. This is a Class 0.2 Infraction if the CFJ has been Judged or dismissed at the time the Infraction is reported (such Judgement or dismissal is legal even though delivered late); otherwise it is a Class 3 Infraction, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and a new Judge shall be assigned in the usual manner. A Judge who has neither judged nor dismissed a CFJ within seven days after the end of the assigned deliberation period becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ, and any Judgement or Dismissal submitted after this time is not legal and shall not be accepted by the CotC. However, if the Player assigned to Judge a CFJ ceases to be eligible before judging or dismissing that CFJ, then e is neither required nor permitted to either return a Judgement on, or dismiss, that CFJ, and ceases to be the Judge assigned to that CFJ at the moment e becomes ineligible. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3962 (Wes), 20 January 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000 text: The Deliberation Period for any particular CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge and ends seven days later. At any point after the end of the Deliberation Period for a particular CFJ, if the Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed that CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may Recuse that Judge from the case and assign a new one as usual. If this occurs, then the Recused Judge shall commit the Class 3 Infraction of Judging Late, detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts, and shall furthermore be ineligible to Judge any future CFJ's until such time as e requests to be made eligible again by publicly posting such a request. Seven days after the end of the Deliberation Period, the Judge becomes ineligible to Judge that CFJ and commits the Infraction of Judging Late as described elsewhere in this Rule. If the Judge returned a Judgement or Dismisses that CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period but before being Recused as Judge, then e shall commit the Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, a Class 0.2 Infraction to be detected and Reported by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4076b (Steve), 10 October 2000 text: The Deliberation Period for a CFJ begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces the identity of the Judge, and ends seven days later. In the week following the end of the Deliberation Period, if the Judge has not yet returned Judgement or Dismissed the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge from the CFJ and assign it to a new Judge, by posting an announcement to that effect. A Judge who Judges or Dismisses a CFJ after the end of the Deliberation Period, but before being recused as a Judge, commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. A Judge who has neither Judged nor Dismissed a CFJ seven days after the end of its Deliberation Period is automatically recused from that CFJ. A Judge who is recused from a CFJ in accordance with this Rule commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge (to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts), and becomes ineligible to be a Judge until e publicly requests to be made eligible again. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days. A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. During a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused. A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Judge, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. E becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is soonest. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4670 (OscarMeyr), 9 April 2005 text: For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days. A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. During a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse the Judge by announcing that e does so. At the end of a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then e is automatically recused. A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4808 (Murphy), 15 June 2005 text: For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days. A Judge who Judges a CFJ during eir Overtime Period commits the Class 0.5 Infraction of Judging a Bit Late, to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. During a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement. Upon the end of a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible. A Judge recused according to this Rule commits the Infraction of Failure to Judge; the Class of this Infraction is Class 3 for an unlinked CFJ, or for a single incident of Linked CFJs, Class 2 plus the number of Linked CFJs. This Infraction is to be reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The recused Judge becomes ineligible to Judge any CFJ for one month, or until e publicly requests to become eligible again, whichever is sooner. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: For each Judge assigned to a CFJ, eir Deliberation Period begins when the Clerk of the Courts announces eir assignment, and lasts seven days; eir Overtime Period begins when eir Deliberation Period ends, and lasts seven days. During a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts may recuse em by announcement. Upon the end of a Judge's Overtime Period, if e has not yet Judged the CFJ, then the Clerk of the Courts shall recuse em by announcement as soon as possible. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 408 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 216,409,591 history: Initial Mutable Rule 216, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. If a Judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Speaker must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. text: A legal judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such reasons and arguments form no part of the judgement itself. If a judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Speaker must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the judgement. history: Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), 26 August 1993 text: A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. If a Judgement is accompanied by reasons and arguments, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. history: Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), 21 October 1993 text: A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, 21 November 1994 text: A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDED. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, 15 March 1995 text: A legal Judgement is either TRUE, FALSE, UNDECIDABLE, or UNKNOWN. The Judgement of UNDECIDABLE is reserved for those statements which are logically neither TRUE nor FALSE. The Judgement of UNKNOWN is for those statements for which the Judge is unable to obtain information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. The Judge must make a reasonable effort to obtain all information necessary to determine whether the statement is TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE. The Judgement must be accompanied by reasons and arguments, which include, but are not necessarily limited to, citations of deciding Rules, past Judgements, and game custom. A Judgement delivered without reasons and/or arguments is completely invalid. Such reasons and arguments form no part of the Judgement itself. However, the Clerk of the Courts must distribute the reasons and arguments along with the Judgement. Any evidence which is used to justify the Judgement, other than appeals to Game Custom or to common sense, must be presented by the Judge. If the Judge introduces evidence beyond that submitted in the Call for Judgement, e must include this evidence in eir Judgement. All such added evidence must be distributed as part of the reasons and arguments by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Points. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mils. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil. history: Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 27 November 1996 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 3 Mil. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT. history: Infected and Amended(9) Substantially by Rule 1454, 7 May 1997 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(10) Substantially by Rule 591, 21 May 1997 text: A Judge returns a Judgement by sending it to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judgement must be either TRUE or FALSE, and must be delivered to the Clerk not later than the end of the permitted time for deliberation. A Judgement returned after the end of the permitted deliberation period, or by a Player ineligible to be Judge of that CFJ is not legal and shall not be accepted by the Clerk. A CFJ has been Judged when a legal Judgement has been received by the Clerk. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT. history: Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), 29 December 1997 text: A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgment to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary of 1 VT. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), 9 August 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 text: A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. A Judge who delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period shall receive a Judicial Salary of 20 Stems history: Amended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), 2 May 2000 text: A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall distribute the Judgement to the Public Forum. If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: A Judge judges a CFJ by sending eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. The Judgement of a CFJ must be either TRUE or FALSE. Only the Judge assigned to a CFJ may Judge that CFJ. As soon as possible after the receipt of a legal Judgement, the Clerk shall publish the Judgement. If a Judge delivers Judgement on a CFJ before the end of the assigned deliberation period, then the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out to the Judge the Judicial Salary as soon as possible after the publication of eir Judgement. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: The Judge of a CFJ Judges it by submitting eir Judgement to the Clerk of the Courts. "Decision", "Finding", and "Response" are unambiguous synonyms for "Judgement". For a Trial Judge, a Judgement is exactly one of the following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED. As soon as possible after receiving a Judgement, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish it, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material included with the Judgement. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 text: The judge of a CFJ judges it by publishing eir judgement, along with any arguments, evidence, or other material that e considers relevant. For a trial judge, a judgement is exactly one of the following: TRUE, FALSE, or DISMISSED. history: Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable, nonsensical, too vague, or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case SHOULD guide future play, including future judgements, but does not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes.) The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.) The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an inquiry case. An inquiry case's purpose is to determine the veracity of a particular statement. An inquiry case CAN be initiated by any first-class person, by announcement which includes the statement to be inquired into. (Including a yes/no question is equivalent to including a statement that the answer to that question is yes, and for such a case, YES and NO are synonymous with the judgements TRUE and FALSE respectively.) The initiator is unqualified to be assigned as judge of the case, and in the initiating announcement e CAN disqualify one person from assignment as judge of the case. An inquiry case has a judicial question on veracity, which is always applicable. The valid judgements for this question are: * FALSE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically false at the time the inquiry case was initiated * TRUE, appropriate if the statement was factually and logically true at the time the inquiry case was initiated * UNDECIDABLE, appropriate if the statement was logically undecidable or otherwise not capable of being accurately described as either false or true, at the time the inquiry case was initiated * IRRELEVANT, appropriate if the veracity of the statement at the time the inquiry case was initiated is not relevant to the game * UNDETERMINED, appropriate if the statement is nonsensical or too vague, or if the information available to the judge is insufficient to determine which of the FALSE, TRUE, and UNDECIDABLE judgements is appropriate; however, uncertainty as to how to interpret or apply the rules cannot constitute insufficiency of information for this purpose The judgement of the question in an inquiry case, and the reasoning by which it was reached, SHOULD guide future play (including future judgements), but do not directly affect the veracity of the statement. The Rulekeepor is ENCOURAGED to annotate rules to draw attention to relevant inquiry case judgements. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 217 history: Initial Mutable Rule 217, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom and the Spirit of the Game before applying other standards. text: All judgements must be in accordance with the rules; however, if the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the statement to be judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, 25 July 1995 text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other standards. history: Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 7 August 1995 text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider Game Custom, the Spirit of the Game and past Judgements before applying other standards. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, 3 March 1996 text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: All Judgements must be in accordance with the Rules; however, if the Rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the Statement to be Judged, then the Judge shall consider game custom, common sense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the game before applying other standards. When a Judge is considering eir Judgement of a Statement contained in a CFJ, e shall make eir evaluation based on the truth or falsity of the Statement at the time the CFJ was issued. history: Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: When interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best interests of the game. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 218,411,494 history: Initial Mutable Rule 218, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the Rules, the Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new Players -maintain a list of all Players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all Players -maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and make such a list available to all Players -make a random determination whenever such determination is required by the Rules. text: In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the rules, the Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new players -maintain a list of all players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all players -maintain a complete list of the current rules, and make such a list available to all players -make a random determination whenever such determination is required by the rules. history: Amended by Proposal 411, 26 August 1993 text: In addition to duties which may be listed elsewhere in the Rules, the Industrious Speaker shall have the following duties: -register new Players -maintain a list of all Players and their current scores, and make such a list available to all Players -maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and make such a list available to all Players -make a random determination whenever such determination is required by the Rules and no other Player is specified to make the determination. history: Amended by Proposal 494, 29 September 1993 text: The Speaker shall make all random determinations required by the Rules except when the Rules specify another party to make the determination. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 219 history: Initial Mutable Rule 219, 30 June 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: If a Player believes that the Rules are such that further play is impossible, or that the legality of a Move cannot be determined with finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. If the Statement is judged TRUE, then the Player who invoked Judgement shall be declared the Winner of that Game, and the Game ends, with no provision for starting another Game. This Rule takes precedence over every other Rule determining the Winner of the Game. text: If a player believes that the rules are such that further play is impossible, or that the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or that a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the player may invoke judgement on a statement to that effect. If the statement is judged TRUE, then the player who invoked judgement shall be declared the winner of that game, and the game ends, with no provision for starting another game. This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner of the game. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 305 history: Created as Power=1 Rule text: All Players begin with 0 points. Points may not be gained, lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules. history: Amended by Proposal 305 text: All Players begin with 0 points, except that new Voters who enter part-way through a game in progress shall be given the average of all current Voters scores. Points may not be gained, lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 308 history: Created as Power=1 Rule text: Voters who voted AGAINST Proposals which are adopted receive 10 points apiece. Players whose Proposals are adopted shall receive a random number of points in the range 1-10 inclusive. Players whose Proposals are not adopted shall lose 10 points. history: Amended text: When the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is finished, the Player who proposed the Proposal shall receive F-A points, where F is the number of Votes cast FOR the Proposal and A is the number of Votes cast AGAINST it. history: Amended by Proposal 308 text: When the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal is finished, the Player who proposed the Proposal shall receive F-A points, where F is the number of Votes cast FOR the Proposal and A is the number of Votes cast AGAINST it; all Players who vote AGAINST a Proposal which passes shall receive 2(F-A) points. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 312 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 312 by Proposal 312, 15 July 1993 text: If a Voter votes, he gets one (1) point at the end of the Voting Period. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1556, 17 April 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1579, 28 April 1995 text: If a Player votes, e gets one (1) point at the end of the Voting Period. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: For each Proposal, and for each Player, if that Player casts a legal Vote on that Proposal, then that Player shall receive one Point at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal. The Assessor shall detect and report these Point transfers, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal for which the Player's Vote was cast. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: For each Proposal, and for each Player, if that Player casts a legal Vote on that Proposal, then that Player shall receive one Mil at the end of the Voting Period of that Proposal. The Assessor shall detect and report these Mark transfers, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal for which the Player's Vote was cast. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 316 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 316 history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 316 by Proposal 353 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 319 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 319 by Proposal 319 text: Every Proposal submitted to the Speaker must be headed with a Title. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 326,783 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 326 by Proposal 326, 19 July 1993 text: Proposals submitted after the passage of this rule (# 326) which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing or otherwise changing points to Players based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are disallowed. history: Amended by Proposal 783, ca. Jan. 1994 text: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Jan. 1994 text: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. (*Was: 326*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1622, 17 July 1995 text: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. history: Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 31 July 1995 text: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1683, 29 August 1995 text: Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 330 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 330 by Proposal 330 text: Every time a Voter proposes a Proposal, that Voter shall gain one Entry into a weekly Lottery. Each week, a random Entry shall be selected by the Speaker, and the Voter who "owns" that Entry shall receive 5 points. For purposes of this Rule, a "week" shall begin on Monday at 12:00 noon and last seven days, ending on Monday at 11:59 am, in the time zone in which the Speaker resides. The weekly drawing shall take place as soon as possible after the end of the week. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 337 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 337 by Proposal 337 text: For the purposes of applying Rule 213, a "Move" refers to a Proposal of a Rule, vote on a Proposal, call for Judgement, or Judgement. Any invocation of Judgement must be in regard to a particular Move or question the legality of a particular Rule, which move or Rule must be clearly stated in the CFJ. A CFJ which does not contain such reference is invalid and not considered for Judgement. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 349 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 349 by Proposal 349 text: Points shall be computed according to the Rules in effect, then shall be rounded to the nearest integer. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 352 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 352 by Proposal 352 text: Not less than once a week, the Speaker shall post the current scores of all Players to the mailing lists, making his best efforts to determine the correct scores. If a Player feels the posted scores are incorrect, he may make a Call for Judgement, stating what he believes to be the correct scores. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, the scores stated in the Call for Judgement become the official scores of all Players. Otherwise, the scores posted by the Speaker become the official scores of all Players. If no Call for Judgement is made during the week following a posting of scores by the Speaker, the posted scores become official, that is, each Player's score is changed, if necessary, to the amount posted by the Speaker. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 355,848 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 355 by Proposal 355 text: If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. However, -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points. -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation. -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged UNDECIDED. -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge. If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been convicted of breaking the Rule. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player has been acquitted of breaking the Rule. history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 848 (Garth), 3 March 1994 text: If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. Similarly, if a Player believes that any Player has commited a Crime, e may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. Either kind of Statement is known as an Accusation. A Criminal Court is defined as the Judge of an Accusation. However, -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points. -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation. -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged UNDECIDED. -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge. If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been found Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player has been found Not Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable. history: Amended by Rule 750, 3 March 1994 text: If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. Similarly, if a Player believes that any Player has commited a Crime, e may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. Either kind of Statement is known as an Accusation. A Criminal Court is defined as the Judge of an Accusation. However, -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points. -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation. -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged UNDECIDED. -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge. If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been found Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player has been found Not Guilty of breaking the Rule or committing the Crime, as applicable. (*Was: 355*) history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player believes that any Player has not abided by a Rule then in effect, in the form in which it was then in effect, then the Player may invoke Judgement on a Statement to that effect. However, -The Accusing player immediately loses 5 points. -No Player may be so Accused of actions committed before the adoption of this Rule or more than 30 days before the Accusation. -No Player may be so Accused more than once concerning the same committed act, unless the last such Accusation has been judged UNDECIDED. -The following exception takes precedence over previous Rules concerning Judgement: Neither Accusing nor Accused Player may act as Judge for the Accusation; in any case where this would occur, a random Voter, neither Accuser nor Accused, shall be Judge. If the Statement is judged TRUE, the Accused Player has been convicted of breaking the Rule. If the Statement is judged FALSE, the Accused Player has been acquitted of breaking the Rule. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 356 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 356 by Proposal 356 text: Let there be three Groups named Group Red, Group Blue, and Group Yellow. Upon the passage of this Rule, each Voter shall be designated as a member of one, and only one, of these Groups. The Groups shall be as close to equal in population as possible, and the Group designated to each Voter shall be chosen randomly, such that the above population restriction is followed. At no time may any Voter be a member of more than one of these Groups. The Speaker shall reveal to all Players the members of each Group when the above actions have taken place, and whenever the members of any Group change. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 357 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 357 by Proposal 357 text: When a Voter refers to the Nomic Speaker, or any other Speaker, that Voter must use one of the following adjectives in conjuction with the Speaker: Admirable, Amazing, August, Astonishing, Astounding, Beloved, Benevolent, Brilliant, Celebrated, Circumcised, Circumspect, Cogetative, Competant, Consummate, Courteous, Deserving, Devoted, Diligent, Distinguished, Divine, Effulgent, Elevated, Eminent, Excellent, Exceptional, Extraordinary, Exalted, Fabulous, Famed, Fine, Foremost, Generous, Glorious, Gracious, Grand, Great, Hallowed, High, Holy, Honored, Illustrious, Impartial, Impressive, Incredible, Industrious, Influential, Judicious, Just, Kind, Kosher, Kindred, Lofty, Magnificent, Majestic, Magnanimous, Marvelous, Mighty, Neat, Noble, Omnilaborant, Outstanding, Overworked, Persuasive, Pensive, Phenominal, Pious, Prime, Qualified, Quintessential, Regal, Reknown, Remarkable, Respected, Revered, Solicitous, Spectacular, Splendid, Superb, Superior, Transcendant, Trustful, Unparalleled, Upright, Unusual, Venerated, Vigilent, Virile, Virtuous, Watchful, Wonderful, Worshipped, Xenophilic, Zealous, or any combination of the preceeding. Any Voter not following this directive shall lose 1 point per reference to the Great and Virtuous Speaker which does not use one of the above words. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 357 by Proposal 397 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 358 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 358 by Proposal 358 text: No proposal is allowed to contain any word which begins with the letter indicated in the Title of this proposal, being the second to the last letter of the English alphabet. If a Proposal does contain a word beginning with the aforementioned letter, the Voter who proposed that Proposal shall lose 1 point per instance of a word beginning with said letter. This is not dependant upon the passage of the offending Proposal into a Rule. This Rule shall be repealed when Proposal 357 is Amended to include a word beginning with said Evil letter. If Proposal 357 is not accepted as a Rule, then this Rule shall remain in effect until Repealed. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 358 by Proposal 497 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 362,795 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 362 by Proposal 362 text: When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall not be penalized in points for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. For example, if a Player were to quote Rule 203 in its entirety, that Player would not lose points for not referring to our Benevolent Speaker properly withing this quote. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 795 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1507, 24 March 1995 text: When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall not be penalized in points nor blots for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. (*Was: 362*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1756, 21 October 1995 text: When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall not be penalized in any way for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. For the purpose of this Rule, a gain or loss of Kudos by any means shall not be construed as a punishment. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. history: ... [orphaned text: When a Player quotes a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words of another Player, or other references, that Player shall not be penalized in points for the terminology or grammar used in those quotes. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. (*Was: 362*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 363 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 363 by Proposal 363 text: If a Player is convicted of breaking a rule, then the Player who first formally accused him of breaking that rule shall receive back any points which the accusing Player may have lost as a direct result of that accusation. In addition, he shall receive a reward of three additional points. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 366,464,870,1016 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 366 by Proposal 366 (KoJen), 10 August 1993 text: A Player may put self on hold for the purposes of Nomic game play. A Player who is on hold may not participate in the Game in any way. Specifically: * Cannot Vote * Cannot send any message to the list, except a request to revert to active status. * Cannot send any private message to any Player which concerns the game. * Does not gain or lose points. * Is absolved of all normal duties, such as serving as a Judge. Putting oneself on hold is intended for Players who cannot participate for some time, because of vacation, temporary loss of email, or whatever. Its use is completely optional, but since penalties could acrue from inability to respond to judgeship duties, it is a good idea. A Player puts self on hold by writing a message to the list, stating, "Put me on hold", or something to that effect. This message must also include a reasonable excuse; this is left to Judgement at this time to decide. A Player puts self back on active status by writing a mesage to the list, stating, "Put me on active status", or something similar. A request to return to active status must be at least 4 days later than the request to go on hold. (This is intended to prevent such hold periods from being too frequent.) The Benevolent Speaker takes note of these hold and active status messages and marks the Player's status accordingly. If a Player makes excessive use of hold status, the Player may lose the privilege. Again, this is left to Judgement to define what is excessive. history: Amended by Proposal 464 (Wes), 20 September 1993 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours. While On Hold, a Player may not communicate with any other Player in any way regarding the Game, with the exception of notifying the Speaker of the desire to stop being On Hold. This prohibits the Player from Voting, proposing Proposals, campaigning, or discussing the Game whatsoever with another Player. The Player is also absolved of any duties which would require said participation, including appointment as a Judge. history: Amended by Proposal 870 (Garth), 4 April 1994 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 April 1994 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by notifying the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. If a Player wishes to cease being On Hold, that Player shall notify the Speaker of the fact. The Speaker shall then notify all other Players. A Player may not be On Hold for less than 96 consecutive hours. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge (*Was: 464*) history: Amended by Proposal 1016, 4 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1337, 22 November 1994 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge (*Was: 464/870*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1374, 17 January 1995 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*) history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1407, 29 January 1995 history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1618, 10 July 1995 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of eim, including appointment as a Judge This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*) history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of em, including appointment as a Judge This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*) history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of em, including appointment as a Judge. This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. (*Was: 464/870*) history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: A Player may choose to be placed On Hold at any time by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum. A Player may not place any other Player besides emself on Hold. A Player may cease to be On Hold by sending a message indicating such to the Public Forum, so long as it has been at least 96 hours since e last went On Hold. An Active Player is a Player who is not On Hold. While On Hold, a Player may not Vote, propose Proposals, or campaign for or hold Office. E is also absolved of any duties which would otherwise be required of em, including appointment as a Judge. This rule takes precedence over any rule giving special duties to a particular player or a particular group of players. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2464, 16 February 1996 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2479, 16 February 1996 text: At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules. When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e posts a message to the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be On Hold. An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e posts a message to the Public Forum stating that e wishes to be Off Hold, provided that e has been On Hold for at least 96 hours. history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), 11 May 1997 text: At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules. When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e Moves to the Stasis Chamber. An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e Moves from the Stasis Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3665 (General Chaos), 22 January 1998 text: At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules. When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e Moves to the Stasis Chamber. An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e Moves from the Stasis Chamber. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold. "Active" and "Inactive" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" and "On Hold", respectively. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), 8 May 1998 text: At any time, each Player shall either be On Hold or Off Hold. This status shall not be changed except as specified in the Rules. When a Player registers (or reregisters), e is Off Hold. An Off Hold Player becomes On Hold when e announces in the Public Forum that e goes On Hold. An On Hold Player becomes Off Hold when e announces in the Public Forum that e comes Off Hold. E may not do so until at least 96 hours after e last went On Hold. "Active" and "Inactive" are unambiguous synonyms for "Off Hold" and "On Hold", respectively. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player's activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. An activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active. A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive. An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active. A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen". Only active players may vote, make proposals, or hold office. Inactive players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. Frozen players may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002 text: Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player's activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. An activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active. A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive. An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active. A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen". Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4388 (OscarMeyr), 5 October 2002 text: Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player's activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. An activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active. A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive. An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active. A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen". Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, and is not permitted to perform any of the actions defined by the Rules that non-frozen Players are explicitly permitted by the Rules to perform, with the exception of changing eir activity level, and deregistering. Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4400 (Pakaran), 23 October 2002 text: Each player has an activity level, which is always exactly one of active, inactive, and frozen. A player's activity level may not be modified except by methods described explicitly in the rules. This rule takes precedence over each rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. An activity level of active is higher than any other activity level. An activity level of inactive is higher than an activity level of frozen. Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e becomes active. A player may lower eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. If the player becomes inactive in this way, e may not become active until at least 96 hours after e last become inactive. An inactive player may become active by announcing that e does so, unless the rules do not permit that player to become active. A frozen player who has been frozen for at least 90 days may increase eir activity level by announcing that e does so and indicating eir new activity level, unless the rules do not permit that player to change to that activity level. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. "put in cold storage" is an unambiguous synonym for "frozen". Only an active player may vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. A frozen player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action. Not being Active is a Win-Preventing Condition. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002 text: (a) Each player has an activity level, which is either active or inactive. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. (b) Whenever a player registers or reregisters, e is active. (c) A player may change eir activity level by announcing that e does so, provided that a week has passed since e last changed eir activity level. (d) Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a Judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. (e) This rule takes precedence over each other rule that regulates activity levels and the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity level. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4527 (Murphy), 16 September 2003 text: Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and inactive. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the past week. Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005 text: Activity is a stuck player switch with values active and inactive. "Off hold" and "on hold" are unambiguous synonyms for "active" and "inactive", respectively. A player may flip eir activity, unless e has done so within the past week. A player may, with Support and without 2 Objections, flip the activity of another player to inactive, if that other player has not made a public post in the last 30 days. A player made inactive by this method becomes active immediately upon eir next public post. Inactive players may not vote, make proposals, hold office, or be a judge of a CFJ. An inactive player may not be required by the rules to perform any duty or action, unless the rules explicitly state that they can require inactive players to perform that duty or action. This rule takes precedence over all other rules that regulate activity, or the powers or duties that a player may have because of eir activity. history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1016 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 367 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 367 history: ... [orphaned text: When Judgment has been called for, a Judge is randomly selected by the Benevolent Speaker from among the players, excluding - the player who called for Judgment - any player who is "involved" by the statement Involvement of a Voter or the Mighty Speaker implied, if the statement to be judged makes mention of one of the following: - an action or inaction of that Voter or the Mighty Speaker - a Rule mentioning the Mighty Speaker - a Rule proposed by that voter The player selected has 3 days in which to accept or refuse the appointment by posting to the listserver. Any player who does not respond to selection in 3 days shall be penalized 10 points, and is deemed to have refused appointment. If a selected player refuses appointment, then a further random selection is made from the remaining pool of players. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 374 history: Created as Power=1 Rule text: Players may trade points to other Players, for the purpose of "buying" Votes, Proposals, Judgements, or any other Commodity explicitly outlined by future rules, within the following limits: (a) the trade being made must be posted to the listserv (b) a Player may only trade a positive number of points (c) a Player may not trade more points than e currently has Commodities not explicitly declared as such via legislation (eg "future considerations" at the time of this Proposal) may not be bought or sold. history: Amended by Proposal 374 text: A Player may voluntarily transfer points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the listserv (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of points (c) a Player may not transfer more points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer points if the recipient would as a result have more than 90% of the points required to win. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforeceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 377 history: Created as Power=1 Rule text: No Player may have more than three Proposals up for vote at any given time. history: Amended text: Any Player who may make a Proposal may have up to four Proposals up for vote at any given time. history: Amended by Proposal 377 text: There shall be no limit on the number of Proposals a Player may have up for vote at any given time. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 381 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 381 by Proposal 381 text: There shall be four classes of Crimes: Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. Each Class is more vile than the last, with Class A being the least vile and Class D being the most vile. Future legislation shall determine the punishments for each Class, as well as which actions would be classified as each Class. New classes more vile than Class D Crimes may be created by future legislation. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 384,690,911 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 384 by Proposal 384 (Alexx), 16 August 1993 text: At any time in the week following the posting of a Judgement, any Player who believes that Judgement to be in error may Appeal that Judgement. "In error" includes, but is not limited to, being in violation of the Rules. Once a judgement has been Appealed, it may not be Appealed again. When a Judgement is Appealed, an Appeal Court is set up. An Appeal Court shall consist of an odd number of Justices greater than one. Unless another Rule specifies otherwise, that number shall be three. The Justices shall be selected in the same manner that the Rules provide for selecting Judges, with the following restrictions: 1) no Player may be selected more than once for any particular Appeal Court. 2) the Player who made the Appeal shall not be selected for that Appeal Court. 3) The Player who made the original Call For judgement which is being Appealed shall not be selected for that Appeal Court. After a Justice has accepted appointment, he has one week in which to return a Decision. If the Justice does not return a Decision in that time, he shall be penalized 10 points and another Player shall be chosen to take his place as Justice, unless a Verdict has been reached on that Appeal, in which case there shall be no replacement and he shall not be penalized. A Decision must be one of the following: (1) TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT, (2) TO SUSTAIN JUDGEMENT, or (3) UNDECIDED. A Decision may be accompanied by reasons and arguments, but any such reasons and arguements form no part of the official Decision itself. A Verdict is reached based on the Decisions of the Justices. If a majority of the Justices return the Decision TO OVERRULE JUDGEMENT, then the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED. Otherwise the Verdict is JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED. If enough Decisions have been returned to ensure one of these two Verdicts, then the Verdict is reached immediately; it does not wait for the remaining Justices to return a Decision. If the Verdict is JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED, then the Judgement in question stands, and the Player who Appealed the Judgement is penalized 10 points. If the Verdict is JUDGEMENT OVERRULED, then the Judgement in question is changed to UNDECIDED. At any time in the week following the return of a Verdict, any Player may submit a Proposal that the Verdict be Reversed, i.e. JUDGEMENT SUSTAINED changed to JUDGEMENT OVERRULED or vice versa. In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 2/3 of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period; this Rule takes precedence over Rule 209. If the Proposal passes, the Verdict is Reversed and points are adjusted as if the new Verdict had been the original Verdict. history: Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), 11 November 1993 text: At any time in the week following the return of a Judgment on a Call for Judgment, any Player may submit a Proposal that the Judgment on that statement be changed (from FALSE to TRUE; from TRUE to FALSE; from UNDECIDED to either TRUE or FALSE). In order to pass, such a Proposal must receive 3/5 of the Votes legally cast within the prescribed Voting Period. If the Proposal passes, the Judgment is changed accordingly and points are adjusted in accordance with the new Judgment. history: Amended by Proposal 911 (Garth), 4 May 1994 text: A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall return the compensation e received to the Point Reserve. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994 text: A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall return the compensation e received to the Point Reserve. (*Was: 690*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, 29 November 1994 text: A Judgement may be Appealed upon the insistence of any three Players to the Public Forum. If a Judgement is successfully Appealed, the Justices shall each Judge the Statement as if they were Judges. They may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. If a Justice should fail to return Judgement in the allotted time, e shall be fined three Points for each day by which e missed the deadline. This fine shall be levied by the Scorekeepor. If a majority of the Justices' Judgements agree, the Statement shall be considered to have been Judged accordingly. Otherwise, it shall be considered to have been ruled UNDECIDED. The Justices' reasoning and arguments shall be recorded with the original CFJ. Once a Judgement has been made, the Justices may make Injunctions just as may Judges, provided a majority of them agree. The decision of the Justices is final; no further Appeal of that Statement may be made. If the decision of the original Judge of the Statement is changed by the Justices, the Judge shall forfeit the compensation e received for judging. (*Was: 690*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, 15 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, 24 March 1995 text: If within two weeks after a Judgement is distributed to the Public Forum, three players post to the Public Forum their insistence that it be appealed, then the judgement is Appealed. If a judgement is Appealed, the Clerk of the Courts shall within one week report this to the Public Forum, together with the statement of the CFJ. When this happens, the Speaker, CotC, and Justiciar shall serve as Justices, judging the statement as if they were Judges. The Justices may confer with each other on the case before delivering Judgement if they desire. A Justice may appoint another willing Player to act as Justice; the player so appointed becomes Justice in eir place. A Justice who was ineligible to serve as Judge of the CFJ, or who was Judge of the CFJ, may not deliver judgement as Justice, but must instead so appoint another player, as soon as possible. No Player may deliver judgement more than once on the same CFJ; rather than do so as Justice e must instead appoint another player to act as Justice, as soon as possible. If a Justice, A, is required by the Rules to appoint another Player as Justice, he may do so by declaring to the CotC that e is unable to find another willing player to so serve; in this case the CotC shall as soon as possible select an eligible player at random to serve as Justice in place of A. The Justices shall receive the same compensation as Judges for each Statement so Judged. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: Whenever an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be constituted to consider the Appeal and to reach a determination. A Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if any) shall then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk of the Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be selected, as described below. A Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that Board; this does not in any way affect that Player's eligibility to serve in the first position, however. If a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to be selected to serve on that Board of Appeals if e is eligible to be selected as a Judge of that CFJ. However, if this restriction would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, it shall not have any effect for that Board. If a Board of Appeals is considering a question that does not pertain to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those already selected) shall be eligible to be selected for that Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, then all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, 22 March 1996 text: Whenever an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be constituted to consider the Appeal and to reach a determination. A Board of Appeals shall consist of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts shall select the Justices for each Board of Appeals as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected. First, the Speaker shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Justiciar shall be selected, if eligible. Then, the Clerk of the Courts shall be selected, if eligible. All remaining positions on the Board (if any) shall then be filled by the random selection of the Clerk of the Courts from amongst all those Players eligible to be selected, as described below. A Player who has already been selected to serve on a given Board of Appeal is not eligible to be selected a second time for that Board; this does not in any way affect that Player's eligibility to serve in the first position, however. If a Board of Appeals is considering a question pertaining to a CFJ, then a Player shall only be eligible to be selected to serve on that Board of Appeals if e was not a Judge of that CFJ, and is eligible to be selected as a Judge of that CFJ. However, if this restriction would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, it shall not have any effect for that Board. If a Board of Appeals is considering a question that does not pertain to any one CFJ, then all Active Players (except those already selected) shall be eligible to be selected for that Board. If this would result in there being fewer than three Players who are eligible to serve on that Board of Appeals, then all Players, whether or not active, shall be eligible. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, 3 October 1996 text: When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E was ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace eim as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment. history: Amended(7) Cosmetically by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997 text: When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E was ineligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), 24 October 1997 text: When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E was not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration when it was called, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001 text: When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: When an appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected in order to reach a decision about the consideration mandated by the appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three distinct Players, called Justices. The Clerk of the Courts selects the Justices for each Board, as follows, until three eligible Justices have been selected; The Speaker is selected, if eligible; The Justiciar is selected, if eligible; The CotC is selected, if eligible; Any remaining positions are then filled by random selection, by the CotC, from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected to serve on that Board. ii) E has been dismissed as Justice from that Board. iii) E has been Judge in the matter the Board is to consider. iv) E is not eligible to Judge the CFJ that resulted in the matter under consideration, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. v) E is on Hold, and this restriction does not prevent three eligible Players from being selected by the CotC for the Board. vi) E is frozen. A Justice is permitted to appoint another eligible Player to replace em as Justice on a given Board, provided the Player consents. A Justice does this by notifying the Clerk of the Courts of the appointment. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge. A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows: a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by random selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active. An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents. As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004 text: When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appelate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appelate Judge. A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appelate Judges, determined as follows: a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active. An Appelate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents. As soon as possible after an Appelate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. The last Appelate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 text: When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge. A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows: a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) The Justiciar is selected, if eligible. d) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. v) E is not Active. An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents. As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge. A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows: a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents. As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall randomly select an eligible Player to replace em. The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007 text: When an Appeal is initiated, a Board of Appeals shall be selected to reach a decision about the subject of the Appeal. A Board of Appeals consists of three Appellate Judges. Any Judge assigned according to this Rule is an Appellate Judge. A Board of Appeals is selected when the Clerk of the Courts correctly announces the identity of all Appellate Judges, determined as follows: a) The Speaker is selected, if eligible. b) The Clerk of the Courts is selected, if eligible. c) Any remaining positions are filled by selection by the Clerk of the Courts from all remaining eligible Players. A Player is ineligible for selection if any of the following is true: i) E has already been selected for that Board. ii) E has been dismissed from that Board. iii) E has been Trial Judge of the subject of the Appeal. iv) E is ineligible to Judge the CFJ at the time of selection. An Appellate Judge may appoint another eligible Player as eir replacement by informing the Clerk of the Courts, provided the Player consents. As soon as possible after an Appellate Judge is recused, the Clerk of the Courts shall select an eligible Player to replace em. The last Appellate Judge selected is the Lead Judge for that Board. If the Lead Judge is replaced, then the replacement becomes Lead Judge. history: Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 history: Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the of the prior judgement * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according to that judgement: * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question history: Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according to that judgement: * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else defaults to 50. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks, other than an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according to that judgement: * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else defaults to 50. In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition are: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question Initiation of an appeal case renders the prior question suspended. It remains suspended as long as the question on disposition in the appeal case has no judgement. When the question on disposition has a judgement, things happen according to that judgement: * if AFFIRM, the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * if REMAND, the prior question is rendered open again * if REASSIGN, the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again * if OVERRULE with a replacement judgement, the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else defaults to 50. In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 text: There is a subclass of judicial case known as an appeal case. An appeal case's purpose is to determine the appropriateness of a judgement that has been assigned to a judicial question, and make remedy if the judgement was poorly chosen. The assignment of judgement being questioned (appealed against, or appealed) is referred to as the prior assignment; the word "prior" in this rule is used to refer to the circumstances of the prior assignment. An appeal concerning any assignment of judgement in a non-appeal case within the past two weeks CAN be initiated by any player with 2 support. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, an appeal CANNOT be initiated concerning an assignment caused by a judgement in an appeal case, nor an assignment for which an appeal has already been initiated. The entities qualified to be assigned as judge of an appeal case are the judicial panels consisting of three members, where each of the members is qualified to be assigned as judge of the prior case and none of the members is the prior judge. An appeal case has a judicial question on disposition, which is applicable if and only if the prior question is applicable. The valid judgements for the question on disposition, and their effects, are as follows: * AFFIRM, appropriate if the prior judgement was appropriate for the prior question; the prior judgement is assigned to the prior question again * REMAND, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement but the judge believes that the judge of the prior case can make a better judgement if given a new opportunity; the prior question is rendered open again * REASSIGN, appropriate if there is serious doubt about the appropriateness of the prior judgement; the judge of the prior case (if any) is recused, and the prior question is rendered open again * OVERRULE with a valid replacement judgement for the prior question, appropriate if the prior judgement was inappropriate in the prior question and the replacement judgement is appropriate for the prior question; the replacement judgement is assigned to the prior question When an appeal case is initiated, the prior question is suspended, and remains so until the question on disposition in the appeal case is judged. A panel CAN publish a concurring opinion when judging AFFIRM, and SHALL do so if and only if the reasoning by which the prior judge reached eir judgement was incorrect in whole or part. Each concurring opinion SHALL explain the nature of the error(s) in the prior judge's reasoning. Each concurring opinion has an error rating, an integer from 1 to 99; it CAN be specified by the panel when the concurring opinion is published, or else defaults to 50. In the week after the panel publishes a valid judgement, any panel member may publish a formal Dissenting Opinion with Support. This Dissenting Opinion becomes a part of the record of the case, and SHOULD aid in interpreting the decision. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 385 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 385 by Proposal 385 text: At any time not less than 24 hours before the end of a Voting Period for a given Proposal, the originator of that Proposal (and no other Player) may issue a 'corrected' version of that Proposal to the Benevolent Speaker. This Proposal replaces the original Proposal. Any Votes cast on the original Proposal are discarded, as is the original Proposal itself; the voting for the original is never completed. The corrected version is issued as a new Proposal, with a new Number and a new Voting Period starting from its time of issuance. As a penalty for not getting things right the first time and bogging down the legislature, the correcting Player loses three Points upon the removal of the original Proposal. A Proposal may also simply be withdrawn by the originating Player during this time period, without any new Proposal replacing it, but the Player must still lose three Points. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 386,733,881,1006 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 386 by Proposal 386 (Alexx), 16 August 1993 text: An Incumbent Officer (or Official) is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Incumbent Official may be replaced by another Player (the "Challenger") if that Player makes a Proposal to replace the Officer with him or herself, and that Proposal passes. The action of making this Proposal constitutes "Running For Office." The Proposal is treated normally, but requires at least a 2/3 affirmative Vote of all those Players casting legal Votes on that Proposal to pass. This Rule takes precedence over 209. An Officer may resign at any time, provided he or she appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Challenger is running for his Office, the Officer may not appoint a successor, but instead the Challenger automatically becomes the new Officer. In such a case, the Vote for the appointment of the Challenger is rendered null and void. If an Office is vacant for any reason, a Player is selected randomly for that Office in the same way that Judges are selected. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. history: Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), 24 November 1993 text: An Official is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player, by a Proposal stating so, and that Proposal passes. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. Running for office history: Amended by Proposal 881 (Garth), 13 April 1994 text: An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player if a Proposal to that effect passes. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player if a Proposal to that effect passes. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Proposal is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player proposed will by eis Successor. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. (*Was: 733*) history: Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, 22 November 1994 text: An Officer is any Player who has been Appointed or Elected to an Office specified in the Rules. A Judge is not an Officer. An Officer may be replaced by another Player by a Directive to install that Player into the Office. The Proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. An Officer may resign at any time, provided e appoints a successor. If an Officer resigns while a Referendum is being voted upon to replace eim, the Player thus proposed will by eis Successor. An Officer shall be appointed only if e consents. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995 text: Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic. An Office may be created as specified by the Rules. A particular Office ceases to exist when there is no Rule specifying that Office. An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall fill an Office without eir consent. When according to the Rules a Player fills an Office, any other Player previously filling that Office, if any, ceases to fill that Office. A Directive may be proposed to install a Player in an Office. A proposal containing such a Directive shall have an Adoption Index of at least 1. If the Directive takes effect, then the Player so proposed fills the Office, if e consents. This Rule applies to general Offices, and therefore defers to Rules for specific Offices. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, 1 September 1995 text: Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic. Only those Offices specifically established by the Rules. If an Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it ceases to exist. An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without giving consent. A Player indicates that e consents to fill an Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before, nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is designated to fill the Office in question. It is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office ceases to do so simultaneously. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995 text: Offices are a class of Nomic Entities, referring generically to a position of authority or responsibility in Agora Nomic. An Office exists only if it is specifically established by the Rules. If an Office ceases to be specified in the Rules, it ceases to exist. An Officer is any Player who fills an Office as specified in the Rules. No Player shall be required to fill an Office without giving consent. A Player indicates that e consents to fill an Office by posting to the Public Forum that e does so. To be binding, such a post must be made not more than one week before, nor more than one week after, the time that the Player is designated to fill the Office in question. It is forbidden for two or more Players to hold the same Office at the same time. If the Rules require that a specific Player fill an Office, any other Player who currently fills that Office ceases to do so simultaneously. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996 text: An Office is a position of authority or responsibility established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an Officer. At any time, for each Office there shall be exactly one Officer who holds it. A position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that Office ceases to exist. A given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and privileges that the Rules assign to it. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, 19 June 1996 text: An Office is a position of authority or responsibility established by the Rules and held by a Player, who is called an Officer. At any time, an Office is held by exactly one Player; if no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker. A position of responsibility or authority is only an Office if the Rules specifically designate it as such. An Office only exists as long as there is a Rule in force which specifies that it exists. If the Rule or Rules which mandated the existence of an Office are changed such that they no longer do so, that Office ceases to exist. A given Office has whatever duties, responsibilities, and privileges that the Rules assign to it. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999 text: An Office is a position defined as such by the Rules. At any time, an Office is held by exactly one Player (called an Officer). If no other Rule directly or indirectly specifies which Player holds an Office, it shall be held by the Speaker. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000 text: An Office is a position so designated by the Rules. Each Office is always held by exactly one Player (called an Officer). Each Office shall be held by the Speaker unless otherwise specified. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to acheive Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain offical duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, than the officer shall publish that information once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald's Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Speaker shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. The Herald's Report shall list the holder of each office, and the date upon which each holder last came to hold that office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the Director of Personnel shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is acheived. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. Any Player may make an active Player the holder of an office, thus removing any previous holder from the office, with Agoran Consent, provided: (a) that office has not changed hands with this method in the previous 30 days, and (b) the potential officer consents to hold the office after the announcement of intent is made. If no attempt to achieve Agoran Consent for changing the holder of a particular office is announced in a given quarter, then the IADoP shall make at least one such attempt to change the officeholder in the following quarter, and make the change if consent is achieved. This requirement is waived if another player changes the officeholder in this way during the following quarter. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an Officer or the Speaker fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If an officer fails to satisfy a Timing Order to perform a certain official duty, than the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e were the officer. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. If a Timing Order directed at an office is not satisfied on time, or if the office is vacant, then the player who executed the order may perform the duty as if e held that office. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: The Rules may designate positions to be offices. No office may be held by more than one player. Each office that would otherwise not be held by any player shall be held by the Speaker, unless it is not possible for the Speaker to hold that office. The holder of an office may be referred to by the name of the office. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. history: Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 text: A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office. If the duty of an office is to maintain certain information, then the officer shall publish that information at least once a month, or as soon as possible after a substantial change occurs in the information or the officer receives a request for the information. A weekly report shall be sufficient to satisfy these last two requirements. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 text: A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 text: A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office. An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008 text: A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office. An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. The holder of an office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008 text: A role is an office if and only if it is so defined by the rules. Each office at any time either is vacant (default) or is filled (held) by exactly one player. The holder of an office is an officer, and may be referred to by the name of the office. An office is imposed if it is so described by the rule defining it; otherwise, it is elected. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. As soon as possible after an elected office becomes (or is created) vacant, the IADoP SHALL make at least one nomination for the office; this requirement is waived if another player so makes a nomination. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 388 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 388 by Proposal 388 text: Whenever a new game of Nomic is begun, the status of the new Game when it begins shall be the same as the status of the old Game when it ended, in all respects where the Rules do not decide otherwise. history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: Whenever a new game of Nomic is begun, the status of the new Game when it begins shall be the same as the status of the old Game when it ended, in all respects where the Rules do not specify otherwise. history: ... [orphaned text: Whenever a new game of Nomic is begun, the status of the new Game when it begins shall be the same as the status of the old Game when it ended, in all respects where the Rules do not decide otherwise. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 389 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 389 by Proposal 389 text: If at any time a Voter does not belong to one of the Groups of Rule 356, it shall become a member of the Group with the fewest members. If two or more Groups both have fewer members than all others, the Voter shall be randomly placed within one of these Groups. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 390 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 390 by Proposal 390 text: Let there be an Office for each of the Groups of Rule 356, known as the Vizier of that Group. If at any time a Group does not have a Vizier, one shall be chosen at random from the members of that Group. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 391 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 391 by Proposal 391 text: Let there be a new unit of currency defined for each of the Groups of Rule 356. These units shall be named the X Coins, where the name of the Group associated with the unit is substitued for X. Any Player may possess zero or more of each of these currencies. No Player may possess less than zero of any of these currencies. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 391 by Proposal 626 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 392 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 392 by Proposal 392 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: When a Player's Point total is adjusted by the Noble Speaker, or by another person given Point maintanence authority by future legislation, this change must be posted to the list by the point maintainer, as opposed to making the adjustment silently. Furthermore, requests by a Player, in a form other than a Call for Judgement to adjust the score of another Player must be posted directly to the list, not privately to the adjuster. If the request is in the form of a Call for Judgement, then the rules governing Calls for Judgement apply instead. Specifically: * At the beginning of the Game, the Point maintainer announces the starting Points of all Players. * When the announcement is made of Voting results, the Point maintainer must announce the number of Points gained or lost for each Proposal. The final score for each Voter must also be reported, but this may be done after a group of Voting results on the same day, rather than after each Vote at the discretion of the Point maintainer. * Even if a Player's score has not changed, all Players' scores must be announced at least once per week at minimum. * If the Point maintainer applies any Rule to adjust a Player's score, the change and the new Point total must be posted to the list. * Voluntary Point Trades are posted to the list by the giver, as provided for by Rule 327. The Point maintainer acknowledges this by verifying the amount of the Trade as well as the new Point totals for the relevant Players. * If a Player feels that a Player's Points should be adjusted (by applying some penalty or reward clause, say) he posts a message to the list stating the affected Player, the Point change, and the reason. The Point maintainter will acknowlege this to the list, stating the decision made, and if an adjustment is made, the Player's new score. If the request was in the form of a Call for Judgement, the Rules for Calls for Judgement apply instead. In general, all requests to the Point maintainer to adjust Points must be posted publicly to the list, not in private. And all decisions by the Point maintainer must be accompanied by the Player's name, the amount of the change, and the new Point total for the Player. text: When a Player's Point total is adjusted by the Noble Speaker, or by another person given Point maintanence authority by future legislation, this change must be posted to the list by the point maintainer, as opposed to making the adjustment silently. Furthermore, requests by a Player, in a form other than a call for Judgement to adjust the score of another Player must be posted directly to the list, not privately to the adjuster. If the request is in the form of a Call for Judgement, then the rules governing Calls for Judgement apply instead. Specifically: * At the beginning of the Game, the Point maintainer announces the starting Points of all Players. * When the announcement is made of Voting results, the Point maintainer must announce the number of Points gained or lost for each Proposal. The final score for each Voter must also be reported, but this may be done after a group of Voting results on the same day, rather than after each Vote at the discretion of the Point maintainer. * Even if a Player's score has not changed, all Players' scores must be announced at least once per week at minimum. * If the Point maintainer applies any Rule to adjust a Player's score, the change and the new Point total must be posted to the list. * Voluntary Point Trades are posted to the list by the giver, as provided for by Rule 327. The Point maintainer acknowledges this by verifying the amount of the Trade as well as the new Point totals for the relevant Players. * If a Player feels that a Player's Points should be adjusted (by applying some penalty or reward clause, say) he posts a message to the list stating the affected Player, the Point change, and the reason. The Point maintainter will acknowlege this to the list, stating the decision made, and if an adjustment is made, the Player's new score. If the request was in the form of a Call for Judgement, the Rules for Calls for Judgement apply instead. In general, all requests to the Point maintainer to adjust Points must be posted publicly to the list, not in private. And all decisions by the Point maintainer must be accompanied by the Player's name, the amount of the change, and the new Point total for the Player. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 394,659 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 394 by Proposal 394, 23 August 1993 text: Whenever a Proposal is made that is wider than 80 characters or longer than 25 lines, its proposer shall be penalized 2 extra Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, its proposer shall be rewarded 1 extra Point. history: Amended by Proposal 659, 29 October 1993 text: Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains more than 70 characters on a single line or longer than 25 lines, the Player to propose that Proposal shall lose two Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, the Player to propose that Proposal shall recieve one Point. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1406, 29 January 1995 text: Whenever a Proposal is submitted which is longer than 25 lines, the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall lose two Points. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, the Proposer shall receive one Point. Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains text intended to become part of a Rule, if any part of that text contains more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), the Proposer shall lose two Points. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1692, 1 September 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: Whenever a Proposal is submitted which is longer than 25 lines, the Proposer (i.e., the Player to propose that Proposal) shall lose 2 Marks. Whenever a Proposal passes that is no longer than 10 lines, the Proposer shall receive 1 Mark. Whenever a Proposal is submitted which contains text intended to become part of a Rule, if any part of that text contains more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text), the Proposer shall lose 2 Marks. The Promotor shall detect and report any transfer of Currency which takes place under the authority of this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e distributes the Proposals which caused such transfers. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1722, 6 October 1995 text: The act of submitting a Proposal which is longer than 25 lines is an Infraction, the penalty for which is 2 Marks. The act of submitting a Proposal containing text intended to become part of a Rule such that any part of that text contains more than 72 characters on a single line (disregarding any leading whitespace which is common to all lines of that text) is an Infraction, the penalty for which is 2 Marks. The Promotor shall detect and report these Infractions. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 399,1051 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 399 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 1051 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995 text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor's salary shall be 5 points per week, if e is constrained by Rules defining the "Logical Rule Set Format". (*Was: 399*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor's salary shall be 5 points per week, if e is constrained by Rules defining the "Logical Rule Set Format". history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, 19 December 1995 text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary of 5 Points. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary of 5 Mils. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. history: Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), 7 November 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. history: Infected and Amended(8) Substantially by Rule 1454, 27 November 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), 15 January 1997 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Short Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. At least once a month, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(10) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. At least once a week, the Rulekeepor shall post the Short Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. At least once a month, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), 30 January 1998 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a weekly Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor's Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999 text: There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a Salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor's Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999 text: The Office of the Rulekeepor There shall exist the Office of Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall receive a Salary as set in the last Treasuror's budget. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of all Rules. The Short Logical Ruleset constitutes the Rulekeepor's Official Report. In addition, the Rulekeepor shall post the Full Logical Ruleset to the Public Forum at least once each month. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), 21 July 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999 text: There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of all Rules. The Rulekeepor's Report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000 text: There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of all the Rules of Agora. The Rulekeepor's Report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. Eir Monthly Report includes the Full Logical Ruleset. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of the rules of Agora. The Rulekeepor's Weekly Report shall include the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor's Monthly Report shall include the Full Logical Ruleset. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 text: The Rulekeepor is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the text of the rules of Agora. The Rulekeepor's Weekly report includes the Short Logical Ruleset. The Rulekeepor's Monthly report includes the Full Logical Ruleset. history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. ] [orphaned text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. The Rulekeepor's salary shall be 5 points per week, if e is contrained by Rules defining the "Logical Rule Set Format". (*Was: 399*) ] [orphaned text: Let there be an Officer known as the Rulekeepor. The Rulekeepor shall maintain a complete list of the current Rules, and post this list to all Players at least once a week. So long as the Rulekeepor is in Office, the Speaker is not required to maintain or distribute the Rules. ] [orphaned text: There exists the Office of Rulekeepor, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of all the Rules of Agora. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 402 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 402 by Proposal 402 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 3 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1421, 7 February 1995 text: There shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office. Whenever there is a Speaker-Elect: 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of his position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker's posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995 text: There shall be a position known as the Speaker-Elect. Only Voters may be Speaker-Elect; whenever a Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker, e shall cease to be Speaker-Elect. Only one Voter may be Speaker-Elect at any one time. A Voter may not become Speaker-Elect except as specified in the Rules. The position of Speaker-Elect is not an Office. Whenever there is a Speaker-Elect: 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker's posting, the old Speaker shall become a Voter and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996 text: Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker: 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker's posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.) history: Infected and Amended(4) Substantially by Rule 1454, 23 February 1997 text: Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker: 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker's posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: Whenever the Rules call for the Speaker-Elect to become Speaker: 1) The Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of eir position, as soon as possible to the Speaker-Elect. 2) The Speaker-Elect shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials as soon as possible after step 1. 3) As soon as possible after step 2, the Speaker shall post a message to the Public Forum announcing that the Speaker-Elect has become the Speaker. At the "Date:" of the Speaker's posting, the old Speaker shall cease to be Speaker and the Speaker-Elect shall become the Speaker. If the Speaker-Elect changes before the completion of this procedure, it must be begun again from step 1. If another Rule specifies that the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker before the completion of step 3, such as the case when the Rules require an immediate Speaker transition, then this Rule defers to it, and the procedure above need not be completed. However, in any case where the above procedure is not completed before a transition of Speakers takes place, the new Speaker is still obliged to make a reasonable effort to obtain all materials necessary for the performance of eir duties from the former Speaker. If this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall make a reasonable attempt to recover this information from other sources. (The Players, the Officers, the Archivist etc.) history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Registrar shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), 14 February 2000 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Payroll Clerk shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), 21 August 2000 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall post to the Public Forum a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Assistant Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005 text: Speaker Transition is a process which commences at the time the Rules call for a Speaker Transition to occur, and which proceeds as follows: (i) when the Speaker Transition commences, the Speaker loses all special rights and privileges that accrue to em as a result of being Speaker; (ii) as soon as possible after the Speaker Transition commences, the Associate Director of Personnel shall publish a Notice of Speaker Transition, identifying the reason for the Transition and the Player who held the Office of Speaker-Elect at the time the Transition commenced; (iii) provided that the Notice of Speaker Transition is correct in its particulars, the posting of the Notice causes the Player identified in it to cease being the Speaker-Elect and to become the Speaker. This concludes the process of Speaker Transition. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel. While there is a pope, no other player may become a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e ceases being a pope. A notice of papal succession declares that a specified player is a pope. The notice is valid only if it is published by the Associate Director of Personnel and the specified player is indeed a pope. Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel. When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. A notice of papal succession is a notice published by the Associate Director of Personnel, that declares that a specified player is a pope, and is valid if the named player is indeed a pope. Upon publication of a valid notice of papal succession, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, the pope becomes the new Speaker, and the pope ceases to be a pope. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is neither the current Speaker nor the Associate Director of Personnel. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope. As soon as possible after a cardinal becomes a pope, the Associate Director of Personnel shall install that pope as Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, if the player is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a pope. This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then installation may be performed by any player by announcement. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4861 (Goethe), 30 May 2006 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, that cardinal may announce that e becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. When a cardinal becomes a pope, any previous pope immediately ceases being a pope. Whenever a pope is not a cardinal, e immediately ceases being a pope. Any Player who is not a pope may install the pope as Speaker, by announcement. Upon this announcement, if the announced player is still a pope, then the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the pope is installed as the new Speaker and ceases to be a pope. This installation cannot be performed if there are unresolved challenges regarding the pope-ness of the player. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4878 (Goethe), 22 January 2007 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. Rules to the contrary nonwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent. If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive, unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran Consent. This is not considered winning. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: A cardinal is an active, ready player who is not the current Speaker. For seven days after a cardinal wins the game with no other players simultaneously winning, then any player may announce that the winning cardinal becomes a pope. Upon this announcement, that player becomes a pope, so please treat em right good forever. Also upon this announcement, the current Speaker ceases to be Speaker, and the new pope is installed as the new Speaker. If the legality of an installation is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, if a Player becomes Speaker via this method, e may not be removed from the Speakership for 90 days without eir own consent. If no cardinal has become a pope in the past six months, or a judge finds that the current Speaker has been inactive, inattentive, unwilling, or unable to perform eir Agoran duties, then a cardinal may be named a pope (and therefore Speaker as above) by Agoran Consent. This is not considered winning. history: Retitled by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 text: The speaker is an office. If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days. If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later found to be illegal. A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5144 (Zefram), 19 August 2007 text: The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora. Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on behalf of the speaker. If an active player who is not the speaker has won the game within the past week, e may become the speaker, thus removing any previous speaker from the office, by announcement, unless someone else has become speaker within the preceding 90 days. If the legality of an attempted installation of this type is not challenged within a week, then it is effective even if later found to be illegal. A speaker who became speaker within the preceding 90 days cannot be replaced by Agoran Consent if e is one of those whose objections are counted in the Agoran Consent procedure. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5182 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 text: The speaker is an office. The speaker is the head of state of this nomic. The speaker embodies the spirit of Agora. Diplomatic missions from this nomic to foreign nomics operate on behalf of the speaker. history: Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 text: The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the longest. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5270 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007 text: The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the longest. The Herald's report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently won the game. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 5430 (Goethe), 9 February 2008 text: The Speaker is the player who has borne the Patent Title of Minister Without Portfolio the longest, with ties broken in favor of the player who has been registered the longest. The Herald's report includes the date on which each Minister Without Portfolio most recently was awarded the title. history: ... [orphaned text: When one Mighty Speaker is yielding his Office to another, the following procedure shall be followed: 1) The Present Mighty Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of his Office to the Prospective Mighty Speaker. 2) The Prospective Mighty Speaker shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials. 3) The Present Mighty Speaker shall post a message to the listserv announcing the official transfer of power, which occurs at the "Date:" of the Present Mighty Speaker's posting. The Present Mighty Speaker remains in Office until the successful completion of step 3. ] [orphaned text: When one Mighty Speaker is yielding his Office to another, the following procedure shall be followed: 1) The Present Mighty Speaker shall forward copies of all necessary materials for the performance of his Office to the Prospective Mighty Speaker. 2) The Prospective Mighty Speaker shall acknowledge the receipt of said materials. 3) The Present Mighty Speaker shall post a message to the listserv announcing the official transfer of power, which occurs at the "Date:" of the Present Mighty Speaker's posting. The Present Mighty Speaker remains in Office until the successful completion of step 3. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 403 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 403 history: ... [orphaned text: Any Proposal which Amends any Rule must: (i) explicitly state which Rule it is Amending, and (ii) fully state the Amended form of that Rule. A Proposal which claims to amend a Rule, but does not fully state the Amended form of that Rule is not a valid Proposal, and must not be accepted by the Mighty Speaker, nor voted upon. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 404 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 404 by Proposal 404 (Alexx), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. text: As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to propose a Rule which conflicts with other Rules or with itself, which is paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2664, 12 September 1996 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2689, 3 October 1996 text: As long as a Proposal satisfies all requirements in place at the time of its making for the proper making of Proposals, the act of making such a Proposal is legal regardless of its content. It is legal to propose a Rule Change which cannot be applied, or which, if adopted, would result in there being Rules which conflict with other Rules or with themselves, which are paradoxical, or which cannot be applied. history: Amended(2) Substantially by Proposal 2832 (Steve), 11 March 1997 text: No Rule shall have any effect which seeks to make the legality of making a Proposal conditional upon its content. history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 404 by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 405,880 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 405 by Proposal 405 (Alexx), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 386. text: No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 386. history: Amended by Proposal 880 (Garth), 13 April 1994 text: No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: No Officer may be 'On Hold' while holding an Office. If a current Officer should place himself On Hold, he is assumed to have resigned without appointing a successor, and the Office should be re-filled in the normal manner. (*Was: 405*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995 text: An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules. When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office. Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant. No player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1631, 17 July 1995 text: An Officer may resign eir Office at any time either by a message to the Public Forum, or by going On Hold, or as otherwise specified in the Rules. When an Officer resigns eir Office, e ceases to fill that Office. If an Officer resigns during the Voting Period for a Proposal containing a Directive to install another player in that Office, then the Player thus proposed, if consenting, will fill the Office. Otherwise, if at the time e resigns e appoints a successor, then the designated successor, if consenting, will fill the Office. If there is no appointed or proposed successor, or if e does not consent to fill the Office, then the Office becomes vacant. No player who is "On Hold" may fill an Office. If an Officer goes On Hold then e automatically resigns all eir Offices. This Rule applies to Offices in General, and thus defers to Rules regarding specific Offices. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996 text: An Officer is permitted to, at any time, remove eirself from any Office e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment. A change in the identity of the Speaker does not automatically cause the transfer of any Offices being held by the former Speaker to the new Speaker. history: Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 2781 (Steve), 15 January 1997 text: An Officer is always permitted to resign from any Office e holds, provided e specifies another Player to succeed em, who then becomes the temporary holder of that Office. For this appointment to be valid, this Player must either explicitly and publically consent to becoming the new holder of that Office within seven days of such appointment, or be the Speaker. The Speaker can be appointed to hold an Office temporarily without consenting, and may not refuse such an appointment. An Officer who resigns without appointing a successor is deemed to have appointed the Speaker to succeed em. A change in the identity of the Speaker does not automatically cause the transfer of any Offices being held by the former Speaker to the new Speaker. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998 text: A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e currently holds. An Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may appoint a successor at the time e resigns. In this case, the resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the named successor agrees in the Public Forum to be successor to the Office, the named successor becomes holder of the Office. A non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who does not name a successor, is immediately removed from Office. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000 text: A Player may, at any time, resign from any Office which e currently holds. An Electee to an Office who resigns from that Office may appoint a successor at the time e resigns. In this case, the resigning Player is retired from that Office; if the named successor agrees publicly to be successor to the Office, the named successor becomes holder of the Office. A non-Electee who resigns an Office, or an Electee who does not name a successor, is immediately removed from Office. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: An oligarch or the holder of an office may resign from eir position at any time by announcing that e does so. The electee to an office may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is retired from that office, and if within one week from the appointment the named succcessor publicly agrees to be successor to the office, that player becomes holder of the office. An oligarch may appoint another player as a successor when e resigns. If so, the resigning player is removed from the Oligarchy, and if within one week from the appointment the named successsor publicly agrees to be successor to the seat in the Oligarchy and pays a fee of 1 Voting Entitlement, that player becomes an Oligarch. A non-electee who resigns or an electee who does not name a successor is immediately removed from office. An oligarch who does not name a successor is immediately removed from the Oligarchy. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4271 (Murphy), 22 March 2002 text: The holder of an Office may resign from it by announcing that e does so. If the holder of an Office is its Electee, and appoints a successor when e resigns, then: (a) The resigning Player is retired from that Office. (b) If the successor consents within a week, then e becomes holder of that Office. (c) If the successor does not consent within a week, then the resigning Player is removed from that Office. Otherwise, the resigning Player is immediately removed from that Office. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 880 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 406,889 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 406 by Proposal 406 (Alexx), 3 September 1993 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The active Clerk of the Court may never be selected as a Judge. As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office. The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal. text: There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The active Clerk of the Court may never be selected as a Judge. As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office. The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal. history: Amended by Proposal 889 (Garth), 13 April 1994 text: There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office. The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. As a salary for carrying out his duties, he will receive 5 points at the end of every seven days he is in Office, counting from his assumption of the Office. The initial holder of this Office shall be the Player who submitted this Proposal. (*Was: 406*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1441, 21 February 1995 text: There shall exist an Office "Clerk of the Courts", who shall have general responsibility over administering Calls for Judgement, as outlined in the Rules. The Clerk's salary shall be five points. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of the Clerk of the Courts, with the general responsibility for the administration of the judicial process, as described elsewhere. The Salary of the Clerk of the Courts shall be five Points. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of the Clerk of the Courts, with the general responsibility for the administration of the judicial process, as described elsewhere. The Salary of the Clerk of the Courts shall be five Mils. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Null-Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a weekly salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999 text: There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a salary equal to 2 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999 text: Clerk of the Courts There shall exist the Office of Clerk of the Courts. The Clerk of the Courts shall receive a salary as set in the last Treasuror's budget. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999 text: There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3978 (Blob), 23 February 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000 text: There exists the Office of Clerk of the Courts, whose responsibility it is to oversee the judicial system. The Monthly Report of the Clerk of the Courts shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past Calls for Judgement (CFJs). The following information shall be included for each CFJ: (i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal. Whenever a CFJ is made, the Clerk shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may, Without Objection, remove any CFJ from the list that e deems no longer relevant. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. The CotC's Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ: (i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal. Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004 text: The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. The CotC's Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player's Orientation. The CotC's Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ: (i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal. Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005 text: The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. The CotC's Bi-Weekly Report shall include the following: (i) Each Player's Orientation. The CotC's Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ: (i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal. Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4919 (Zefram), 2 April 2007 text: The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. The CotC's Monthly Report shall include the Stare Decisis, which is a list of past CFJs. The following information shall be included for each CFJ: (i) its statement; (ii) the date on which it was called; (iii) its outcome (if any) on Judgement; and (iv) its outcome (if any) on Appeal. Whenever a CFJ is made, the CotC shall add it to the list. E may, at eir discretion, add earlier CFJs. E may Without Objection remove any CFJ e deems no longer relevant from the list. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 5066 (Zefram; disi.), 11 July 2007 text: The Clerk of the Courts (CotC) is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing Calls for Judgement (CFJs) and Appeals. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 889 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 413 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 413 history: ... [orphaned text: If the Rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may Call For Judgement on a Statement to that effect. If the Statement is judged TRUE, then the same Judge who judged the Statement TRUE must declare the most recent passed Proposal X such that the Statement was not TRUE before the passage of Proposal X, or declare that there is no such Proposal. (Until the Judge does this, the Judgment is not valid.) If the Judgement of TRUE is not overruled, then the Player who called for Judgement is declared the Winner of the game. When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared that there is no such Proposal X, the game is ended, with no provisions for restarting it. When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared such a Proposal X, the following actions are taken: - all Players remain active, - all Proposals curently being Voted upon are removed from consideration for Voting, - the scores for all Players are set to 0 (zero), - the Rules and explicit game custom are reverted to the state they were in before Proposal X was passed, - a Benevolent Speaker for the next Game is chosen: -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a Voter, -If there is more than one Winner, the Benevolent Speaker randomly selects one of the Winners, who becomes the new Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a Voter, - and a new Game is begun. ] [orphaned text: If the Rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of some action cannot be determined with finality, or if some action appears equally legal and illegal, then a player may Call For Judgement on a Statement to that effect. If the Statement is judged TRUE, then the same Judge who judged the Statement TRUE must declare the most recent passed Proposal X such that the Statement was not TRUE before the passage of Proposal X, or declare that there is no such Proposal. (Until the Judge does this, the Judgment is not valid.) If the Judgement of TRUE is not overruled, then the Player who called for Judgement is declared the Winner of the game. When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared that there is no such Proposal X, the game is ended, with no provisions for restarting it. When a Game ends by this manner and the Judge has declared such a Proposal X, the following actions are taken: - all Players remain active, - all Proposals curently being Voted upon are removed from consideration for Voting, - the scores for all Players are set to 0 (zero), - the Rules and explicit game custom are reverted to the state they were in before Proposal X was passed, - a Benevolent Speaker for the next Game is chosen: -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a Voter, -If there is more than one Winner, the Benevolent Speaker randomly selects one of the Winners, who becomes the new Benevolent Speaker, and the old Benevolent Speaker becomes a Voter, - and a new Game is begun. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 417 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 417 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1302, 4 November 1994 text: That there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with their consent and at the request of the Office's controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office. The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Eis salary shall be 5 points history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995 text: That there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with eir consent and at the request of the Office's controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office. The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Eir salary shall be 5 points. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1741, 15 October 1995 text: Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Eir salary shall be 5 points. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2029, 28 November 1995 text: Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties of the Archivist shall be as follows: * to record the passage and failure of Proposals, * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them. * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points. history: Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 23 January 1996 text: Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties of the Archivist shall be as follows: * to record the passage and failure of Proposals, * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them. * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 points. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: Let there be an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning Offices. The duties of the Archivist shall be as follows: * to record the passage and failure of Proposals, * to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them. * to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, * to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and * to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The salary of the Archivist shall be 5 Mils. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996 text: The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows: i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals, ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them. iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. history: Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: The duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be as follows: i) to record the passage and failure of Proposals, ii) to maintain the Historical Ruleset, a document which includes all rules ever to exist as part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with the periods of time they were in effect, and what Proposals or Rules enacted them. iii) to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, iv) to maintain copies of prior Officer reports, and v) to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as e sees fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. The Archivist is free to design a classification method for the material e stores. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the Agora Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 417 by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998 [orphaned text: That there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with their consent and at the request of the Office's controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office. The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Initially, its salary shall be 5 points and one coin of the office-holder's group per week. The initial office-holder for this post shall be Michael Norrish. ] [orphaned text: That there be established an office known as the Nomic Archivist, which shall be governed by the default Rules concerning official posts. The initial duties of the Nomic Archivist shall be to record the passage and failure of Proposals, to maintain a "historical record" (defined below) of the Ruleset, to maintain a list of Judgements and their case histories, and to maintain a list of game Winners in past games. The Archivist is free to comment on the historical records as they see fit, but such commentary must be clearly delimited from the historical material. Where the material being stored does not already admit a classification method, the Archivist is free to design one themselves. The "historical record" of the Ruleset maintained by the Archivist is one that includes all rules ever part of the nomic Ruleset, annotated with information as to their ultimate fate, whether Repealed or Amended etc. This record of the Ruleset has no legal force. The duties required of the Archivist may be changed with their consent and at the request of the Office's controlling body (whatsoever that may be). Initially, the controlling body of this Office shall be all Players, and any request to change the duties must therefore be supported by a majority of Players "speaking" to the request. Naturally, default Rules for Offices may establish a different controlling body for this Office. The salary of the Archivist office shall be determined by its controlling body. Initially, its salary shall be 5 points and one coin of the office-holder's group per week. The initial office-holder for this post shall be Michael Norrish. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 418 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 418 history: ... [orphaned text: Proposals are to be deemed Improper which would have the effect of Transmuting to Immutable a Rule which refers to one or more specific Mutable Rules. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 423 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 423 history: ... [orphaned text: When the Voting Period for a Proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A Points, where F is the Number of Votes For, and A is the Number of Votes Against. The total gain or loss to the proposer for a single Proposal outcome is limited to plus or minus 10. No Points are awarded to or taken from Voters by this Rule. This Rule takes precedence over and completely nullifies Rule 308, 302, and 211, should any of these still be valid Rules. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 425 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 425 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Call for Judgement was returned which indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2; Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5; Class D = 10. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 426 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 426 history: ... [orphaned text: Each violation of Rule 357 or Rule 358 shall be known as a Class A Crime. All Point penalties indicated by this Rule shall be waived in favor of the system for Crimes indicated in other legislation. This Rule shall not take effect until such time as a punishment is determined for a Class A Crime which involves the loss of at least 1 Point. This Rule takes precedence over Rules 357 and 358 only in regards to the Point penalties to be assessed. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 427 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 427 history: ... [orphaned text: Failure to include a Title in a Proposal, as per Rule 319, shall be known as a Class B Crime. Each offense shall involve the penalties as described in other legislation as pertinent to Class B Crimes. In addition, any Proposal which is submitted without such a Title shall not be a valid Proposal and shall not be passed into a Rule. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 430,502 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 430 by Proposal 430 (Alexx), ca. Sep. 13 1993 text: A Judge who delivers a legal Judgement within the mandated time receives 3 Points. history: Amended by Proposal 502 (Ronald Kunne), 30 September 1993 text: A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1501, 24 March 1995 text: A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot. Blot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce the Judge's Blots below one. It is the Judge's responsibility to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within the mandated time receives 3 Points and loses 1 Blot. A Judge who delivers a legal Judgment or Decision within 72 hours receives 2 Points extra, and loses 1 more Blot. Blot losses due to this rule do not apply if they would reduce the Judge's Blots below one. It is the Judge's responsibility to report eir Blot losses to the Tabulator. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: All judicial salaries shall be paid by transfer from the Bank at the end of the Nomic Week. The Clerk of the Courts shall, whenever a Player has earned a judicial salary, make a report of this fact in the Public Forum. At the end of the Nomic Week, all judicial salaries earned during that week, except as noted below, shall be paid; transfers arising from such payment are to be detected and reported by the Clerk of the Courts. The above notwithstanding, any judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not be paid if the decision for which the salary was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the original decision. If a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision. If a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it is made, but is subsequently appealed in a later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Player who made the original decision shall lose currency equal to the salary originally received for that decision. This shall be reported along with all other judicial salaries for that Nomic Week by the Clerk of the Courts. history: Amended(4) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall, whenever a Player has earned a judicial salary, make a report of this fact in the Public Forum. At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Clerk of the Court shall pay out the judicial salaries earned during the preceding week, except as noted below. Any judicial salary earned but not yet paid shall not be paid if the decision for which the salary was earned is currently subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it was earned. In this case, the salary shall be paid at the end of the Nomic Week in which the appeal is decided, and then only if the appeal upholds the original decision. If a decision is overturned in the same Nomic Week in which it was made, no salary shall be paid for the original decision. If a decision is not subject to an appeal at the end of the Nomic Week in which it is made, but is subsequently appealed in a later Nomic Week and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Court shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3635 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to that Player. If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Court shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to that Player. If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall vacate the Payment Order paying the salary originally received for that decision. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall, within one week of the time a Player earns a Judicial Salary, pay out that Judicial Salary to that Player. If a decision (or dismissal) which resulted in a Player earning a Judicial Salary is subsequently appealed and overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill that Player for an amount equal to the Judicial Salary paid to that Player. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall pay out the Judicial Salary to the Judge. As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall bill the Judge for the Judicial Salary (if any) that was paid out to em for that Judgement. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 text: As soon as possible after a Judgement is delivered during the Deliberation Period, the Clerk of the Courts shall award the Judge the Boon of Wisdom. As soon as possible after a Judgement is overturned on appeal, the Clerk of the Courts shall award the Judge the Albatross of Foolishness. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 502 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 434 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 434 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 948 (Stella?), 14 July 1994 [orphaned text: If a Player believes that he has won the Game, he may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is returned with the Judgement TRUE (and that Judgement is not Appealed), then he has won the Game as of the delivery of that Judgement. If the Judgement is TRUE, but is Appealed, but is sustained (and no Proposal to reverse the verdict is made), then he has won the Game as of the delivery of the Appeal verdict. If such a verdict is sustained, challenged by Proposal, but the Proposal does not pass, he has won the Game as of the completion of the Vote on that Proposal. Judgement on a CFJ to win the Game may *not* be delivered until at least 72 hours after its official announcement, in order to give time for the Judge to accept input from the community. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies the exact moment at which a Game is won. ] [orphaned text: If a Player believes that he has won the Game, he may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is returned with the Judgement TRUE (and that Judgement is not Appealed), then he has won the Game as of the delivery of that Judgement. If the Judgement is TRUE, but is Appealed, but is sustained (and no Proposal to reverse the verdict is made), then he has won the Game as of the delivery of the Appeal verdict. If such a verdict is sustained, challenged by Proposal, but the Proposal does not pass, he has won the Game as of the completion of the Vote on that Proposal. Judgement on a CFJ to win the Game may *not* be delivered until at least 72 hours after its official announcement, in order to give time for the Judge to accept input from the community. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies the exact moment at which a Game is won. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 435,754 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 435 by Proposal 435 (Alexx), 30 August 1993 text: Spelling errors do not invalidate Rules if there is no ambiguity in meaning. history: Amended by Proposal 754 (KoJen), 1 December 1993 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies. history: Amended by Rule 750, 1 December 1993 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies. (*Was: 435*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies. history: Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 17 December 1995 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. In other words, the meaning or validity of such communication is not altered in any way by such discrepancies. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), 27 September 1999 text: Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning. A Player shall not be penalised for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, the words of another Player, or other reference. Except when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its standard mathematical meaning. In particular, "number" shall mean "real number". This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies terminology or grammar. history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4507 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved: (1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. (2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another reference. Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved: (3) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. (4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. In particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number". (5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts. (6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning. This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved: (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those contexts. (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language meaning. This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5038 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 text: Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved: (1) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning. (2) A term explicitly defined by the Rules by default has that meaning, as do its ordinary-language synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules. (3) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts, and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, by default has the meaning it has in those contexts. (4) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule by default has its ordinary-language meaning. This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate terminology or grammar. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 436 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 436 history: ... [orphaned text: The Winner is the first Voter to achieve 200 (positive) Points. If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, all such Voters win. When a Game ends in this manner: -If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the Mighty Speaker and the old Venerated Speaker becomes a Voter. -If there is more than one Winner, the Voter with the highest Point total becomes the new Benevolent Speaker. If more than one Voter is tied for the highest score, the Diligent Speaker randomly selects one of them to become the new Overworked Speaker. The old Honored Speaker becomes a voter. -All Players' scores are reset to 0. -A new Game is begun. All Rules and proposed Rule Changes retain the status they had at the end of the old Game. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 450,1011 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 450 by Proposal 450 (Alexx), 10 September 1993 text: Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists only within the context of the current Game of Nomic, such as Points, Votes, etc. may *not* be changed by any action other than those specified by the Rules. history: Amended by Proposal 1011, 5 September 1994 text: 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. history: Amended by Rule 750, 5 September 1994 text: 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: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, 2 June 1995 history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: 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. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2546, 22 March 1996 text: No property of any entity shall be changed except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules, when that entity possesses that property solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that property. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2630, 4 July 1996 text: A "Nomic Property" is any property of any entity which that entity possesses solely by the virtue of the Rules defining that property. No Nomic Property shall be changed except in accordance with procedures specified by the Rules. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3900 (Elysion), 6 September 1999 text: A Nomic Property is any property of any entity the value of which is defined by the Rules. Other Rules may define procedures by which the value of a Nomic Property may be changed. history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1011 by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 451 [History is unresolved for this rule. Not attempting to show texts.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 452 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 452 by Proposal 452, 10 September 1993 text: The Speaker may not use eis knowledge of the current status of a vote on a Proposal in an attempt to influence the result of the Vote on that Proposal. Violations of this Rule shall be considered a Class C Crime. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1446, 21 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, 24 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1534, 4 April 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1584, 15 May 1995 text: The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal. If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1686, 1 September 1995 text: The Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on a Proposal which has come into eir possession because e is the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on that Proposal. However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public Forum a list of all Players who have already voted on a Proposal. If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 1718, 19 September 1995 text: During the prescribed Voting Period for a Proposal, the Assessor may not use knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal which e would not have were e not the Assessor, in an attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal. However, the Assessor may at eir discretion post to the Public Forum a list of all Players who have already voted on the Proposal. If a Call for Judgment alleging a violation of this rule is found to be TRUE, the Assessor violating this rule shall gain three (3) Blots. Reporting this gain to the Tabulator is the responsibility of the Player who called the CFJ. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 1752, 21 October 1995 text: During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, the Assessor is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal which e would not have were e not the Assessor, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal. Doing so is a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Assessor from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2588, 1 May 1996 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, the Vote Collector is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have were e not the Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 2771 (elJefe), 19 December 1996 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(10) Cosmetically by Proposal 2831 (Murphy), 7 March 1997 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Players who have already voted upon a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3519 (Steve), 23 June 1997 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum, as long as e does not indicate specifically whether the Voting Entity has voted or declared Presence. Doing so is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3610 (Steve), 9 December 1997 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3758 (Steve), 19 June 1998 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(14) by Rule 452, 19 August 1998 text: For the purposes of this Rule, a Vote Collector is defined as any Player to whom the Rules give the responsibility of tallying votes on a Proposal, Referendum or Election. Hence this Rule explicitly regulates the behaviour of the Assessor with respect to Proposals, and the behaviour of any Player (generally the Registrar or the Speaker) who acts as Vote Collector in an Election or Referendum. During the prescribed Voting Period of a Proposal, Election or Referendum, anyone who has served as Vote Collector for that Proposal, Election, or Referendum is prohibited from making use of any knowledge of the current status of the vote on that Proposal, Election or Referendum which e would not have had e not served as Vote Collector, in any attempt to influence the result of the vote on the Proposal, Election or Referendum. Doing so is the Crime of Electioneering, a Class C Crime. This Rule shall in no way prevent a player from transferring voting records to the current Vote Collector. Doing so is not a Crime. This Rule shall in no way prohibit the Vote Collector from posting, at any time and to the Public Forum, a list of those Voting Entities which have already voted or declared that they are Present on a given Proposal, Election or Referendum. If a vote or declaration of Presence has already appeared in the Public Forum prior to the publication of such a list, then the Vote Collector is permitted to indicate how the Voting Entity has voted, or whether it has declared itself Present. Otherwise, the Vote Collector is prohibited from specifically indicating whether the Voting Entity has voted, or declared Presence. The publication of a list as described in this Rule is not a Crime, unless specified as such by another Rule. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, has no effect. Two months after this paragraph is added to this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 452 by Proposal 3785 (Steve), 2 September 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 454,884 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 454 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 884 (Ian), 13 April 1994 text: All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. A Player who submits a proposal which does not include a Declaration, as described here and in other legislation, shall be guilty of a Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a proposal which includes a Declaration that has not been approved by legislation shall be guilty of a Class A Crime. The Declarations shall be as follows: (Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new Rule to come into existance. (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to change wording or form. (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to cease to exist. (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa. (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been defined which describes the Proposal. Additional legislation may define additional legal Declarations or change the presentation of the Declaration, but this Rule shall take precedence in all other cases. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. A Player who submits a proposal which does not include a Declaration, as described here and in other legislation, shall be guilty of a Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a proposal which includes a Declaration that has not been approved by legislation shall be guilty of a Class A Crime. The Declarations shall be as follows: (Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new Rule to come into existance. (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to change wording or form. (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to cease to exist. (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa. (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been defined which describes the Proposal. Additional legislation may define additional legal Declarations or change the presentation of the Declaration, but this Rule shall take precedence in all other cases. (*Was: 454*) history: ... [orphaned text: All Proposals must declare what effect that Proposal will have on the Rule Set. If said Proposal has a Title, this Declaration shall appear on the line immediately below that Title. In any case, the Declaration shall appear in parentheses. The Declarations shall be as follows: (Creates a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a new Rule to come into existance. (Amends a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to change wording or form. (Repeals a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes an existing Rule to cease to exist. (Transmutes a Rule) shall be used if the Proposal causes a Mutable Rule to become Immutable, or vice versa. (Other) shall be used if no other Declaration has been defined which describes the Proposal. Additional legislation may define additional legal Declarations or change the presentation of the Declaration, but this Rule shall take precedence in all other cases. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 455 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 455 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 885 (Ian), 13 April 1994 [orphaned text: Any Player who submits a Proposal which does not include a Declaration, as described in other legislation, shall be guilty of a Class C Crime. Any Player who submits a Proposal which includes a Declaration which has not been approved by legislation shall be guilty of a Class A Crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 457 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 457 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player ceases to be the Speaker, and then becomes a Voter, that Player may not Vote on any Proposal whose Voting Period began while that Player was still the Speaker. This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which indicates who may or may not Vote. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 459 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 459 by Proposal 459 (Jim Shea), 15 September 1993 text: The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week unless otherwise stated in the Rules. Any activity which must occur at least weekly must occur at least once each Nomic Week. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996 text: The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of each calendar quarter. This Rule defers to any Rule that defines another explicit schedule for events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in the given period. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), 8 December 1999 text: The Nomic Week begins at midnight, GMT, each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at midnight, GMT, on the first day of each calendar quarter. Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in the given period. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4114 (Elysion), 2 March 2001 text: The Nomic Week begins at the midnight, GMT, that begins each Monday. Any automatic change in the state of the Game which must occur weekly occurs at the beginning of the Nomic Week. Any automatic change which must occur monthly occurs at the midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of the month. Any automatic change which must occur quarterly occurs at the midnight, GMT, which begins the first day of each calendar quarter. Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. Any activity that must be performed at least weekly, monthly, or quarterly, must occur at least once in the given period. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: Weeks, months, quarters and years are epochs. The corresponding Agoran epochs, which constitute the four types of Agoran epochs, are Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of the same type begins. Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch, they shall be interpreted to refer to the corresponding Agoran epoch. Automatic events that happen weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran epoch. Any activity that must be performed weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each corresponding Agoran epoch. Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4505 (Murphy), 20 June 2003 text: Days, weeks, months, quarters, and years are epochs. The corresponding Agoran epochs are Agoran days, Agoran weeks, Agoran months, Agoran quarters, and Agoran years, respectively. Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. An Agoran epoch lasts until the next Agoran epoch of the same type begins. Except in this Rule, when the Rules refer to an epoch as an independent entity (e.g. "each month"), they shall be interpreted as referring to the corresponding Agoran epoch. However, when the Rules refer to an epoch as a relative duration (e.g. "one month after", "within one month", "for one month"), they shall be interpreted as referring to the ordinary-language meaning of that duration. Automatic events that happen daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly happen at the beginning of the corresponding Agoran epoch. Any activity that must be performed daily, weekly, monthly, quarterly, or yearly must be performed at least once during each corresponding Agoran epoch. Other Rules may explicitly define alternate schedules for events or classes of events. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 459 by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 460,1004,1012,1042 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 460 by Proposal 460 (Jim Shea), 15 September 1993 text: A Player not On Hold who fails to post a message to the listserv, cast a Vote, or submit a Proposal or CFJ for 14 consecutive calendar days is deemed to have left the Game and shall be removed from the list of Players. If the former Player re-enters the same Game, it shall be with the same score as when e left and e shall not be considered a new Player. Otherwise, e shall enter on the same terms as a new Player. history: Amended by Proposal 1004, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 1012, 4 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 1042, 21 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, 21 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1338, 24 November 1994 text: A Voter is deregistered when one of the following conditions applies: (i) E is not On Hold, has not previously asked the Registrar to remain registered, and has not, for 14 consecutive calendar days, either sent a message to the Public Forum, or sent a message to another Player of a kind which the Rules require to be recorded in a Report which becomes publically available. (ii) E is On Hold for a period exceeding 2 months. However, the above conditions do not cause deregistration until the condition which would cause deregistration is brought to the attention of the Registrar in a message to the Public Forum, correctly noting that the Voter is subject to deregistration. The Registrar must publicly verify the correctness of the claim to the best of eir ability, as soon as possible. The Voter is deregistered at the time the message correctly claiming deregistration appears on the Public Forum. If the Registrar does not respond within one Week, then e is considered negligent and the Speaker shall make the verification and announcement instead. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule leaving deregistration of a Player entirely in the hands of that Player. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1466, 1 March 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1597, 2 June 1995 text: A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports to the Public Forum that one of the two conditions exists: a. The Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a message to the Public Forum or to any Player of a nature which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes publically available during the fourteen day period immediately preceding the posting of a message which announces that fact, or b. The Voter in question has been On Hold for the entire two month period immediately preceding the posting of a message which annnounces that fact. Upon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or, in eir absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make a report within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required verification and announcement instead. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might prevent a Player from being deregistered against eir own will. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2506, 3 March 1996 text: A Voter shall be deregistered when any Player correctly reports to the Public Forum that one of the two conditions exists: a. The Voter in question is not On Hold and has not sent a message to the Public Forum or to any Player of a nature which must be recorded in a Report which then becomes publically available during the fourteen day period immediately preceding the posting of a message which announces that fact, or b. The Voter in question has been On Hold for the entire two month period immediately preceding the posting of a message which announces that fact. Upon the posting of any such message, the Registrar, or, in eir absence, the Speaker, shall, as soon as possible, determine if the claim is correct or not, and announce eir determinations to the Public Forum. If the Registrar fails to make a report within seven days, the Speaker shall make the required verification and announcement instead. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which might prevent a Player from being deregistered against eir own will. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2568, 12 April 1996 text: A Player is Absent if either of the following is true: * e is not On Hold and, for the period of fourteen days immediately preceding, has neither sent a message to the Public Forum, nor sent, to any other Player, a message of a nature such the Rules required the receiving Player to record the receipt of the message; or * e is presently on Hold and has been On Hold without interruption for the entire period of sixty days immediately preceding. An Absent Voter is deregistered when any other Player correctly alleges the Absence of that Player in an announcement to the Public Forum. Whenever a Player publically alleges the Absence of a Voter, the Registrar shall determine the correctness of the allegation (unless the Voter alleged to be absent is the Registrar, in which case the Speaker shall do so), and announce that determination as soon as possible. However, the failure of the Registrar (or Speaker, as appropriate) to post a timely determination does not in any way invalidate the deregistration of a Voter correctly alleged to be Absent. This Rule in no way precludes a Player from being deregistered by other means, and takes precedence over any Rule which would prevent a Player from being deregistered by this Rule. history: Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3522 (Zefram), 23 June 1997 text: Each Player is exactly one of Not Absent, Maybe Absent, Absent or Abandoning. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, e becomes Not Absent. If a Player posts to the Public Forum clearly identifying a particular Active Player, and alleging that that Player has Abandoned the game, then the Player alleged to have Abandoned becomes Maybe Absent. If a Player has been Maybe Absent continuously for two weeks, e becomes Absent. If a Player has been On Hold continuously for sixty days, e becomes Absent. Any Player can cause any Absent Player to become Abandoning by stating that e is doing so in the Public Forum. If the Speaker ever becomes Abandoning, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment, e ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. If any Player becomes Abandoning, e is deregistered, and the Registrar shall As Soon As Possible announce such in the Public Forum. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3578 (Steve), 6 November 1997 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Infected and Amended(8) Substantially by Rule 1454, 23 December 1997 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(9) by Rule 1042, 6 January 1998 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to be deregistered by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E is then deregistered. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the deregistration has actually occurred. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3853 (Blob), 19 April 1999 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class A Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 20 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3990, "Harsher Blot Penalties", (Elysion), 30 March 2000 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4133 (Tim), 5 April 2001 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in the Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating in the Public Forum that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged in the Public Forum that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an allegation in the Public Forum that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny in the Public Forum that the Player has become a Zombie. The Registrar shall include in eir Report the most recent date on which each Player changed from being Noisy, Quiet or Silent to any of the others. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: Each Player is either Noisy, Quiet or Silent. Whenever a Player posts to the Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating publicly that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can cause a Silent Player to become a Zombie by stating publicly that the Silent Player has Abandoned the game. If the Speaker is Silent, and it is alleged publicly that e has Abandoned the Game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. E then becomes a Zombie. In either case, the Registrar shall, as soon as possible after an public allegation that a Player has Abandoned the game, confirm or deny publicly that the Player has become a Zombie. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4154 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: Each Player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a Player posts to a Public Forum, or a new Player registers, that Player is Noisy. Any Player who has not caused another Player to become Quiet within the last 24 hours can cause another Active Noisy Player to become Quiet by stating that e is doing so, and clearly identifying that Player, in a Public Forum. If a Player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, e becomes Silent. If a Player has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any Player can make a Silent Player a Zombie by publicly alleging that the Silent Player has abandoned the game. A Player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a Player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny that the Player is a Zombie. If a Speaker has abandoned the game, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment, to be detected and reported by any Player. E ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker. The previous Speaker then becomes a Zombie. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001 text: Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy. A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in which e identifies the player and states that e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks or has been Inactive continuously for two months, e becomes Silent. Any player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny the allegation. If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order: (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker; (ii) the Silent player is deregistered. The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: Each player is always Noisy, Quiet, or Silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is Noisy. A player who has not within the most recent 24 hours caused another player to become Quiet may cause another Active Noisy player to become Quiet by sending a message to a public forum in which e identifies the player and states that e causes that player to become Quiet. Whenever a player has been Quiet continuously for two weeks, Inactive continuously for two months, or Frozen continuously for two years, e becomes Silent. Any player may publicly allege that some other player has abandoned the game. A player has abandoned the game if and only if e is Silent. As soon as possible after a public allegation that a player has abandoned the game, the Registrar shall publicly confirm or deny the allegation. If the allegation is confirmed, then the following events shall occur in order: (i) if the Silent player is the Speaker, e commits the Class 15 Crime of Speaker Abandonment and ceases to be Speaker, and the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker; (ii) the Silent player is deregistered. The Silent player shall be deemed to have been deregistered as of the timestamp of the message from the Registrar confirming the allegation. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4407 (Steve), 30 October 2002 text: (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is noisy. (b) A player who has not quietened another player in the past 24 hours may do so by publically identifying the player and stating that e causes that player to become quiet. (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent. (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002 text: (a) Each player is always noisy, quiet, or silent, but never more than one of these. Whenever a player registers or posts to a public forum, that player is noisy. (b) A player who has not quietened another active, noisy player in the past 24 hours may cause another active, noisy player to become quiet by publically identifying the player and stating that e causes that player to become quiet. (c) If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent. (d) Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003 text: Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent. A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum. A player may flip another player's noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours. If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent. Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 4758 (Quazie), 15 May 2005 text: Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent. A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum. An active player may flip another active player's noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours. If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent. Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 4791 (Quazie), 6 June 2005 text: Noisiness is a stuck player switch with values noisy, quiet, and silent. The noisiness of an active player may not be changed if e has posted to a public forum in the past 120 hours. A non-noisy player becomes noisy whenever e posts to a public forum. An active player may flip another active player's noisiness from noisy to quiet, unless e has done so for another player within the past 24 hours. If a player has been quiet continuously for one month, or inactive continuously for three months, e becomes silent. Any player may publish a Notice of Abandonment, identifying another player and alleging that that player has abandoned the game. A Notice of Abandonment is or becomes invalid if the player identified in it is not, or ceases to be, silent. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1042 by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 462,957 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 462 by Proposal 462, 17 September 1993 text: Any Vote of YES shall be treated as a Vote of FOR. Any Vote of NO shall be treated as a Vote of AGAINST. history: Amended by Proposal 957 (Garth), 25 July 1994 text: Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered as in favor or opposition. history: Amended by Rule 750, 25 July 1994 text: Votes of FOR or YES are to be considered Votes in favor of a Proposal. Votes of AGAINST or NO are to be considered Votes opposed to a Proposal. Other Votes are not to be considered as in favor or opposition. (*Was: 462*) history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 463,925 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 463 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 925 (Stella?), 27 June 1994 text: At least once in any seven day period, the designated scorekeeper shall distribute the scores of all Players, updated at least up to and including the previous complete Nomic Week. If a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e shall send a public message pointing out the error. If the Scorekeepor agrees e shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours. If the Scorekeepor disagrees or does not correct the error, the Player who pointed out the error, may make a Call for Judgement, stating the error and its correction. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then -the Scorekeepor shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours; -the Scorekeepor shall not receive eis salary in the Nomic week following the Judgment of the CFJ. If no errors are pointed out in this way within seven days of the posting of the scores, then those scores shall be considered to be the accurate and actual scores for the Game. history: Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994 text: At least once in any seven day period, the designated scorekeeper shall distribute the scores of all Players, updated at least up to and including the previous complete Nomic Week. If a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e shall send a public message pointing out the error. If the Scorekeepor agrees e shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours. If the Scorekeepor disagrees or does not correct the error, the Player who pointed out the error, may make a Call for Judgement, stating the error and its correction. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then -the Scorekeepor shall correct the error and send out the corrected score report within 72 hours; -the Scorekeepor shall not receive eis salary in the Nomic week following the Judgment of the CFJ. If no errors are pointed out in this way within seven days of the posting of the scores, then those scores shall be considered to be the accurate and actual scores for the Game. (*Was: 463*) history: ... [orphaned text: At least once in any seven day period, the designated scorekeeper shall send the current scores of all Players to all Players, making eir best efforts to determine the correct scores. If a Player feels that the posted scores are in error, e may make a Call for Judgement, stating what e believes to be the correct scores. If the resulting Judgement is TRUE, then the scores shall be adjusted to the scores set forth in the Call for Judgement, modified further by any score changes which took place since the time the Call for Judgement was made. If such a Call for Judgement is not made within seven days of the posting of the scores, then those scores shall be considered to be the accurate and actual scores for the Game. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 468 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 468 history: ... [orphaned text: Penal system framework: There shall be several classes of Crimes, including Class A, Class B, Class C, and Class D. Each of these aforementioned Classes is more vile than the last, with Class A being the least vile and Class D being the most vile. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 470 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 470 history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 470 by Proposal 673 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 474,1043 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 474 by Proposal 474 (Alexx), 17 September 1993 text: A player may not be deregistered from the game, except by that player (or the Registrar, as specified elsewhere) announcing that he forfeits. When a player forfeits, he remains registered for a length of time equal to the longest possible voting period on a proposal. At the end of this time, he is deregistered. During the time between forfeiting and being deregistered, the player may not vote or make a proposal. The player automatically refuses any selection for judgement, or any other voluntary appointed duties. If, at any time during this period, the player announces that they have changed their mind about forfeiting, then these restrictions are instantly revoked, and the deregistration does not take place. history: Amended by Proposal 1043, 21 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, 21 September 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, 4 November 1994 text: 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(2) by Proposal 2599, 11 May 1996 text: 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 any attempts by em to reregister before a new Game has begun are without effect; this Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before a new Game has begun. Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996 text: 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 any attempts by em to reregister before the beginning of the next month are without effect; this Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before the beginning of the next month. Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may be deregistered. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), 8 February 1999 text: A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect. This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir deregistration. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000 text: A Player other than the Speaker may deregister from Agora by sending a public message announcing eir deregistration. A Player who deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at the time date-stamped on that message, and any attempts by em to reregister before thirty days have passed are without effect. This Rule takes precedence over Rules which would cause em to be reregistered before thirty days have passed after eir deregistration. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1043 by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 478 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 478 by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), 20 September 1993 text: The Public Forum is hereby defined as any medium by which one player sends or posts a message which, to the best of the sender's intent, knowledge, belief, and ability, is simultaneously sent to all active players and accurately dated to within 5 minutes. The terms "listserv" and "listserver" are synonymous with "Public Forum". history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, 8 March 1995 text: The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well" history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1576, 28 April 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, 10 July 1995 text: The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well. The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum, if to the best of eis knowledge and in normal circumstances messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, 1 September 1995 text: The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is send to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well. The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum, if to the best of eir knowledge and in normal circumstances messages posted to it are received by all Players. Subscription may be necessary to be able to receive the Public Forum, in which case such a subscription is mandatory to all Players. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, 19 December 1995 text: The Public Forum is any medium defined by the Distributor as such. If a Rule requires that a message is sent to the Public Forum, then a message send to all Active Players fulfills this requirement as well. The Distributor may only define a medium to be the Public Forum, if to the best of eir knowledge and in normal circumstances messages posted to it are received by all Players. It is the Player's responsibility to receive all media which comprise the Public Forum. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, 20 January 1996 text: The "Public Forum" is any medium legally designated as such by the Distributor. The Distributor is permitted to designate a medium as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Distributor's knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players. In addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Distributor has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 7 November 1996 text: The "Public Forum" is any medium legally designated as such by the Registrar. The Registrar is permitted to designate a medium as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Registrar's knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players. In addition, sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 2791 (Andre), 30 January 1997 text: The "Public Forum" is any medium legally designated as such by the Registrar. The Registrar is permitted to designate a medium as a Public Forum only if, to the best of the Registrar's knowledge and under normal circumstances, any message transmitted via that medium will be received by all Players. It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), 23 June 1997 text: Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message annoucing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever the Rules calls upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever the Rules call upon some Player to "announce", "post", or "distribute" some communication or notification, this shall be accomplished by posting the communication or notification to the Public Forum, unless another rule specifies otherwise. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be considered the equivalent of sending that message to all Players. A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public Forum and messages sent to a Discussion Forum are never considered to have been sent to all Players. The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any other requirements. It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum. Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive messages via any particular Discussion Forum. The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive messages via that medium. Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it is intended to be public. If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information, then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is required to publish. If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information, that announcement must be made publicly. text: Whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not is a Nomic Property. The Registrar is authorized to change whether a given medium is a Public Forum or not Without Objection. When such a change is made, in order to be effective, the message announcing the change must be sent to both a medium that was a Public Forum before the change, and a medium that is a Public Forum after the change. (If a single medium is a Public Forum both before and after the change, a single message to that medium satisfies this requirement.) It is the responsibility of each Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages sent to every medium which the Registrar has designated as a Public Forum. The temporary inability of a Player to receive a Public Forum does not deprive that medium of any legal significance as a Public Forum. Sending a message, by any medium or combination of media, to every Active Player, is equivalent to sending it to the Public Forum, provided that the message bears a clear indication that it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum, and it is verifiable that the message was in fact sent to every Active Player. Whenever a Player is required to make any communication publicly, this shall be accomplished by sending that communication to a Public Forum. Whenever the Rules require a Player to "announce" something, said announcement shall be made publicly. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002 text: A Public Forum is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. Sending a message to a Public Forum shall be considered the equivalent of sending that message to all Players. A Discussion Forum is a medium of communication so designated by the Registrar. A Discussion Forum shall never be a Public Forum, and a message is not considered to have been sent to all Players solely because it was sent to a Discussion Forum. The Registrar may designate a given medium of communication to be (or cease to be) a Public Forum or a Discussion Forum Without Objection. An announcement of such a designation shall be made via the medium whose designation is being changed. Any designation of a medium as a Public Forum shall also be announced via all existing Public Fora in addition to any other requirements. It is the responsibility of every Active Player to ensure that e is able to receive messages via each and every Public Forum. Any inability of a Player to receive messages via a particular Public Forum does not deprive that medium of its legal status as a Public Forum. Players are in no way required to receive messages via any particular Discussion Forum. The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all media which are currently Public or Discussion Fora and sufficient data regarding each medium to allow new Players to receive messages via that medium. Any communication which has been sent via a Public Forum shall be considered to have been made publicly. Any communication which has been sent to all Players via some other medium, or combination of mediums, shall be considered to have been made publicly, provided it contains some clear designation that it is intended to be public. If the Rules require a Player to publish certain information, then e is considered to have satisfied that requirement at the time e publicly sends a message containing the information e is required to publish. If the Rules require a Player to announce certain information, that announcement must be made publicly. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003 text: Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public. The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on this action, the Registrar's announcement of intent must be sent to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification must be sent to all existing Public fora. It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e can receive messages via each Public forum. The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state. A message is not public unless some rule states that it is public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum, or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player publishes information by publicly sending a message containing that information, and announces something by publishing it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by announcement, then that player may perform that action by announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by private message to some player, then that player may perform that action by sending a message privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it. In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the action to be performed. history: Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 text: Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public. A forum's Publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. The Registrar may, without objection, flip the publicity of a forum. In addition to any other requirements the rules place on this action, the Registrar's announcement of intent must be sent to that forum, and if the forum is being made Public, then the announcement by which the Registrar performs the modification must be sent to all existing Public fora. It is the responsibility of each active player to ensure that e can receive messages via each Public forum. The Registrar shall include as part of eir Report all Public or Discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each such forum to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need not keep track of fora with null state. A message is not public unless some rule states that it is public. A message is public if it is sent via a Public forum, or if it is sent to all players via a combination of fora and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player publishes information by publicly sending a message containing that information, and announces something by publishing it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by announcement, then that player may perform that action by announcing that e performs it. If the rules state that a player may perform an action by private message to some player, then that player may perform that action by sending a message privately to the specified player indicating that e performs it. In either case, such a message must unambiguously describe the action to be performed. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 text: Publicity is a stuck forum switch with values null, Discussion, and Public. A forum's publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. The Registrar may flip the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. The Registrar's report shall include a list of all public or discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Registrar need not keep track of null fora. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. A Forum's Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum's publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. The Herald may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Herald makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. The Herald's report shall include a list of all public or discussion fora and sufficient data regarding each to allow players to receive messages via that medium. The Herald need not keep track of null fora. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. A Forum's Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum's publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. A player performs an action "by private message" to some player by sending an appropriate private message to the specified player. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. A Forum's Publicity may be either null, Discussion, or Public (default null). A forum's publicity may not be changed except as described in this rule. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Null (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Null (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-null publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. A player performs an action "by announcement" by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A player "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a player performs that action by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 text: Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. The Registrar's report includes, for each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each active player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A message is public if and only if it is sent via a public forum or is sent to all players and contains a clear designation of intent to be public. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 482,698 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 482 by Proposal 482 (Alexx), 30 September 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 698 (Wes), 12 November 1993 text: If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then a randomly selected Player shall be chosen to be Eligible to act as Judge. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of Judges. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1385, 17 January 1995 text: If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge. If there are no Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge. If there are no Players other than the caller and those Player Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible to act as Judge. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of Judges. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: If there are no other Players Eligible to be chosen as Judge for a certain Statement, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge. If there are no Active Players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all players other than the Caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, to be Eligible to act as Judge. If there are no Players other than the caller and those Players Barred from judging the CFJ, then the CotC shall choose a Player randomly from among all Players, to be Eligible to act as Judge. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the selection of Judges. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 26 February 1996 text: Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a a given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ. If there would otherwise be no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3821 (Blob), 12 January 1999 text: Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a a given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ. If, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: Every Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to Judge that CFJ. If, after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to Judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to Judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJ. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e becomes ineligible to judge CFJs. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ. If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling at a later date. This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4178 (root), 7 July 2001 text: Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in other Rules. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ. If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players (Active or not), excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then all Players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a Player, then the Caller shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any Players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora without any Players. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling at a later date. This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: Every Active Player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ) unless specifically made ineligible by some Rule. Whenever a Player becomes subject to a Grace Period, e shall be considered to have made emself ineligible to judge CFJs, as described in other Rules. The Caller of a given CFJ is never eligible to judge that CFJ. If, after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account, there are no Players eligible to judge a CFJ, then all Active Players, excluding the Caller and those Players Barred by the Caller, shall be eligible, any other Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. If this still does not result in there being any players eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the Caller and those players barred by the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any players eligible to judge, then all non-frozen players, excluding the Caller, shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any players eligible to judge, and the Caller is a player, then the Caller shall be eligible. If this still does not result in there being any players eligible to judge, then the Caller has happened across an Agora that is a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and begin to thaw out. This Rule can require On Hold Players to perform actions. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule or combination of Rules which would result in there being no Players eligible to Judge a given CFJs. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a Rule specifically makes em ineligible. If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then: a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ. b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ. c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ. d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ. e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out. This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4385 (Steve), 17 September 2002 text: Each Active Player is eligible to Judge a given CFJ, unless a Rule specifically makes em ineligible. Non-active Players are ineligible to Judge CFJs. If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but - after taking all other Rules affecting eligibility into account - no Player is eligible to Judge that CFJ, then: a) All Active non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ. b) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen non-Barred Players become eligible to Judge that CFJ. c) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Players Barred by the Caller become eligible to Judge that CFJ. d) If there is still no eligible Judge, then all non-frozen Barred Players, other than the Caller emself, become eligible to Judge that CFJ. e) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the Caller has happened upon a generational ship whose members are in suspended animation. The Rules suggest that the Caller try calling when we arrive at our destination and thaw out. This Rule can require Inactive Players to perform actions. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4424 (Steve), 16 December 2002 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players are ineligible to judge CFJs. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ. (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills. (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given CFJ, unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. Inactive players are ineligible to judge CFJs. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) All active non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ. (2) If there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ. (3) If there is still no eligible Judge, then the game is in serious trouble. My usual advice in such situations is to panic, and run screaming for the hills. (c) This Rule takes precedence over other Rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or silent is ineligible to judge CFJs. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) all ready, active, non-barred, non-silent players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all ready, active, barred, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ; (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active, non-silent players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don't panic. Somebody's bound to register someday; let em deal with it. (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005 text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. A player who is inactive, unready, or is ineligible to judge CFJs. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) all ready, active, non-barred, players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all ready, active, barred, players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ; (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active, players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don't panic. Somebody's bound to register someday; let em deal with it. (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4835 (Goethe), 2 October 2005 text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. A player who is inactive or unready is ineligible to judge CFJs. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) all ready, active, non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all ready, active, barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that CFJ; (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all active, players other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; (4) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don't panic. Somebody's bound to register someday; let em deal with it. (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: (a) Each active player is eligible to judge a given Call for Judgement (CFJ), unless a rule specifically makes em ineligible. (b) If the Clerk of the Courts is required to select a Judge, but after taking all other rules affecting eligibility into account, no player is eligible to judge that CFJ, then: (1) all non-barred players become eligible to judge that CFJ; then (2) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then all barred players, other than the caller emself, become eligible to judge that increasingly annoying CFJ; then (3) if there is still no player eligible to judge, then don't panic. Somebody's bound to register someday; let em deal with it. (c) This rule takes precedence over other rules concerning who is and is not eligible to judge CFJs. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 698 by Proposal 5069 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 488,1064 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 488 by Proposal 488 (Alexx), 29 September 1993 text: If an officer is mandated to maintain a set of records, then unless those records are explicitly stated in the rules to be private, then they must be available for public perusal. If a player asks the officer for a copy of any or all of those records, the officer must comply as soon as he reasonably can. For an officer not to respond to a publically-stated request for a copy of the records in his keeping within 7 days is a Class B crime. history: Amended by Proposal 1064, ca. Oct. 11 1994 text: If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay a penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer's control and the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Oct. 11 1994 text: If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week, or pay a penalty to the Point Reserve equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer's control and the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. (*Was: 488*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1344, 29 November 1994 text: If an Officer is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. An Officer who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e shall lose a number of Points equal to three times eir weekly Salary, or 10 points, whichever is greater. The penalty does not apply if the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond the Officer's control and the Officer reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. The Speaker shall, within the context of this Rule, be treated exactly as if e were an Officer. (*Was: 488*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1672, 22 August 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. (*Was: 488*) history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2631, 4 July 1996 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. history: Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 7 September 1996 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class D Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for public perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: If a Player is mandated by the Rules to maintain a set of records, these records must be available for perusal, unless such records are designated by the Rules as private. A Player who maintains such records must provide a copy of these Records to any other Player upon request within one week. If e fails to so provide a copy of the requested records within one week, e commits Unlawful Nondisclosure, a Class 2 Crime, unless the Records are unavailable for reasons beyond eir control and e reports this fact, with explanation, within one week. For the purpose of this Rule, all records pertaining to Votes currently in progress, excluding the text of the Proposals under consideration, are designated as private until the end of the Voting Period. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1064 by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 493,901 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 493 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 901 (KoJen), 22 April 1994 text: There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making such a list available on request as well as posting it at least once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores. The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor. history: Amended by Rule 750, 22 April 1994 text: There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making such a list available on request as well as posting it at least once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores. The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor. (*Was: 493*) history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1328, 22 November 1994 text: There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor is responsible for maintaining a list of the Point Scores of all current Players and other Game Entities, making such a list available on request as well as posting it to the Public Forum at least once a Week, and for notifying Players in the event of a Win on Points. E must abide by all Rules governing Scoring, but in cases where the Rules are unclear or contradictory is to use eir best judgement in determining Scores. The Scorekeepor is chiefly a tabulator of Point changes posted by others. E is only Legally Responsible for tabulating those classes of Point changes where Rules specifically bestow Legal Responsibility upon the Scorekeepor. (*Was: 493*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995 text: There shall be an Office called the Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor shall, in addition to eir other duties, detect and report as soon as possible whenever a Player has Won the Game due to a Win by Points. The Salary of the Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week. history: Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996 text: There shall be an Office called the Scorekeepor. The Scorekeepor shall, in addition to eir other duties, detect and report as soon as possible whenever a Player has Won the Game due to a Win by Points. The Salary of the Scorekeepor shall be 5 Points per Week. history: ... [orphaned text: There shall exist an Office known as Scorekeeper. The Scorekeeper is responsible for maintaining a list of the scores of all current players, making such a list available on request, and for notifying players in the event of a win on points. He must abide by all rules governing scoring, but in cases where the rules are unclear or contradictory is to use his best judgement in determining scores. Salary: The salary of the Scorekeeper is two points per week. Initial officeholder: On passage of this proposal the Mighty Speaker becomes Scorekeeper. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 498,869 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 498 by Proposal 498 (Alexx), 30 September 1993 text: A player is any person who is registered as a player. No person may register as a player more than once concurrently. Anyone is allowed to observe the game and participate in discussion of any issue, but no person who is not a player may take official Nomic actions or interact in any way with any entities which are created by the Rules of Nomic and which do not exist outside of Nomic. history: Amended by Proposal 869 (Garth), 4 April 1994 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 April 1994 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. No person may be registered as a Player more than once concurrently. (*Was: 498*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, 12 November 1994 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. 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 prefered, but not obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, 21 February 1995 text: 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(3) by Proposal 2040, 11 December 1995 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration, unless another Rule forbids that person from Registering. 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(4) by Proposal 2599, 11 May 1996 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration. 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(5) by Proposal 2718, 23 October 1996 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration. 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(6) Substantially by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), 11 May 1997 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration. 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. When a Player registers, eir Location is the Welcoming Center. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), 8 May 1998 text: A Player is any person who is registered as a Player. A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules which would prevent such a Registration. 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(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), 10 October 1999 text: Any non-Player person may register by sending a message to a Public Forum requesting registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which have not been fulfilled. If that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the Player e had been most recently. A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending a message to that effect to the Public Forum, but e need not do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), 1 June 2000 text: Any non-Player person may register by sending a message to a Public Forum requesting registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which have not been fulfilled. If that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the Player e had been most recently. A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending a public message to that effect, but e need not do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: Any non-Player person may register by publicly requesting registration. The person immediately becomes a registered Player, unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration which have not been fulfilled. If that person had ever previously been registered as at least one Player (not necessarily concurrently if more than one), then e shall become the Player e had been most recently. A Player may select a nickname for emself at any time by sending a public message to that effect, but e need not do so. A Player should be identified by eir nickname, if e has one. However, any unambiguous method of identification is allowed. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so. Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 12 previous months, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends two months afterwards. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration. Whenever a Player's Grace Period ends, e becomes Ready. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003 text: Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so. Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration. Whenever: (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player's Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or (ii) any Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday. For the purposes of determining when a Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday. Whenever a Player's Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003 text: Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. Each Player is always either Ready or Unready, but not both. A Player is Ready unless the Rules state otherwise. If a Player is Unready, e may become Ready by announcing that e does so. Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration. Whenever: (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player's Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or (ii) any Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday. Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday. For the purposes of determining when a Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday. Whenever a Player's Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003 text: Any person who is not registered as a Player may do so by sending a message to a Public Forum stating that e registers as a Player. Unless other Rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the Rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered Player. Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready. An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready. Whenever a person registers as a Player in Agora, and that person has not been registered as a Player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes Unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and ends sixty days afterwards, unless otherwise provided by this Rule. A Player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration. Whenever: (i) any Holiday occurs completely between the start of any Player's Grace Period and its scheduled conclusion, or (ii) any Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude during any Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal in length to that Holiday. Whenever a Player registers during a Holiday, eir Grace Period shall be extended by a period of time equal to the time which elapses between eir registration and the conclusion of that Holiday, provided that no other Rule extends eir Grace Period by reason of that Holiday. For the purposes of determining when a Player's Grace Period is scheduled to conclude, where more than one Holiday falls fully or partially within that Grace Period, the calculation shall be made separately for each Holiday. Whenever a Player's Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005 text: Any person who is not registered as a player may do so by sending a message to a public forum announcing that e registers as a player. Unless other rules provide additional necessary conditions for registration that have not been fulfilled or the rules otherwise prohibit the person from registering, e immediately becomes a registered player. Readiness is a stuck player switch with values ready and unready. An unready player may flip eir readiness to ready. Whenever a player registers, and that player has not previously been registered as a player in Agora at any time within the 365 previous days, e becomes unready and is subject to a Grace Period that begins at the time of eir registration and lasts sixty days, not including Holidays. A player is only subject to the Grace Period resulting from eir own registration. Whenever a Player's Grace Period concludes, e becomes Ready. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005 text: A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering may become a registered player by sending a message to a public forum which sets forth eir intent to register. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 text: A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register. A person registers or deregisters by announcement. Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player. Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007 text: A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register. A person registers or deregisters by announcement. Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player. Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days. A player who is not a person and has never been a natural person can be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 text: A person who is not currently registered as a player and is not prohibited from registering is permitted to register. A person registers or deregisters by announcement. Whenever a person registers, e becomes a player. Whenever a player deregisters or is deregistered, e ceases to be a player and is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 text: Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players. A person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement. Whenever a player is deregistered, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: Each entity at any time either is or is not a player. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player, and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player. Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. The adjective "registered", or its fuller form "registered as a player", describes those who are players. A person is permitted to register or deregister unless specifically prohibited. A person registers or deregisters by announcement. Whenever a player deregisters, e is prohibited from registering for the next thirty days. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one's citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject's citizenship to Null". A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007 text: Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. "To register" and "to become a player" are synonymous with "to flip one's citizenship to Registered"; "to deregister" and "to be deregistered" are synonymous with "to flip the subject's citizenship to Null". A person may register (unless prevented by the rules) by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. A player may deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person can be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 text: Citizenship is an entity switch with values Null (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Null to Registered), and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Registered to Null). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 text: Citizenship is an entity switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the registrar. A player is an entity whose citizenship is Registered. The verb "to be registered" means to become a player (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Unregistered to Registered), and the verb "to be deregistered" means to cease to be a player (i.e., to have one's citizenship changed from Registered to Unregistered). Where the verb "to register" or "to deregister" is used without an explicit direct object, the action is implicitly reflexive. A person CAN register, unless prevented by the rules, by announcing that e registers, wishes to register, requests registration, or requests permission to register. A player CAN deregister by announcement. E CANNOT register within thirty days after doing so. A player who is not a person and has never been a first-class person CAN be deregistered by any player by announcement. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 503,1005 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 503 by Proposal 503, 30 September 1993 text: Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. history: Amended by Proposal 1005, ca. Aug. 25 1994 text: Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 text: Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. (*Was: 503*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: Any Player who does not responds in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers wihch occur as a result of this Rule. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. (*Was: 503*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. (*Was: 503*) history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will loose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2403, 20 January 1996 text: Any Player who does not respond in the allotted time to a request to be Judge, can not be selected again as a Judge, before he/she specifically asks for it in a message to the Clerk. Any Player who goes On Hold while a CFJ is pending, for which that Player was selected as Judge before e went On Hold and which is not yet Judged, will lose 2 Points per pending CFJ. The Clerk of the Courts shall report Point transfers which occur as a result of this Rule. The CFJ will be reassigned to another eligible Player. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 510,796 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 510 by Proposal 510, 5 October 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Proposal 796, ca. Jan. 31 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Jan. 31 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. (*Was: 510*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. history: Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 7 November 1996 text: Whenever a Player is required to post something to the Public Forum (or to send it to all Players) e is permitted, instead, to send the message to the Registrar with some indication that it should be forwarded to all Players. The Registrar shall send such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players or to the Public Forum. history: ... history: Amended(4) text: Whenever a Player is required to post something to the Public Forum (or to send it to all Players) e is permitted, instead, to send the message to the Registrar with some indication that it should be forwarded to all Players. The Registrar shall send such messages to all Players as soon as possible and in the order received. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players or to the Public Forum. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be an Office known as the Distributor. Whenever the Rules state that anything must be sent to all Players, they may instead be sent to the Distributor with some indication that they should be forwarded to all Players. The Distributor shall then send this message to all Players as soon as possible and in the order recieved. The first Distributor shall be Wes. This Rule shall take precedence over all Rules which require a Player to send something to all Players. (*Was: 510*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 511 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 511 history: ... [orphaned text: If the Distributor fails to send a Player a message which e was required to send to that Player, then the Distributor shall be guilty of a Class B Crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 512 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 512 by Proposal 512, 5 October 1993 text: In the case that the Distributor cannot reach a particular Player, because of computer error, bounced mail, or other problem, a total of three attempts shall be made to contact that Player and notify the Player of this error. These attempts shall be at least 24 hours apart. Should all three attempts fail, the Distributor shall not be required to send that message to that Player. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 513 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 513 by Proposal 513, 5 October 1993 text: The Distributor shall keep all messages which he forwards to all Players for a minimum period of ten days. If a Player request these messages to be resent at any time during these ten days, the Distributor shall resend the requested messages. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 514 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 514 by Proposal 514 (Wes), 5 October 1993 text: All Players shall notify the Distributor of their preferred email address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall notify the Distributor of this change. If a Player fails to notify the Distributor of a change of address, the Distributor shall not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that Player. history: Amended(1) Substantially by Proposal 2739 (Swann), 5 November 1996 text: All Players shall notify the Registrar of their preferred email address(es). Should this address change, that Player shall notify the Registrar of this change. If a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of address, the Registrar shall not be responsible for any mail which did not reach that Player. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003 text: Each Player may list or unlist an e-mail address by informing the Registrar that e is doing so. When a Player registers, the address used to send eir registration becomes listed. A listing is only valid if the Player sends a public message from the listed address within one week of the listing. (This message may be the listing itself.) An unlisting is only valid if the Player keeps at least one address listed. If a Player fails to notify the Registrar of a change of address, then the Registrar is not responsible for any e-mail that fails to reach that Player. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 514 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 516,1040 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 516 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 1040 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be a new unit of currency known as Marks. Any Player may possess zero or more Marks, but not less than zero. Any Player may give any number of Marks to any other Player, as long as that Player will not possess less than zero Marks at the end of the trade. There shall also be an entity known as the Bank, which shall possess Marks exactly like a Player. There shall also be an Office known as the Banker. The Banker shall keep an accurate record of how many Marks each Player possesses, and how many Marks are possessed by the Bank. The Banker shall recieve a salary of 3 Points after every seven days in Office. ] [orphaned text: There shall be a new unit of currency known as Marks. Any Player may possess zero or more Marks, but not less than zero. Any Player may give any number of Marks to any other Player, as long as that Player will not possess less than zero Marks at the end of the trade. There shall also be an entity known as the Bank, which shall possess Marks exactly like a Player. There shall also be an Office known as the Banker. The Banker shall keep an accurate record of how many Marks each Player possesses, and how many Marks are possessed by the Bank. The Banker shall recieve a salary of 5 Points after every seven days in Office. All Mark transfers shall be requested by a message to the server. The Banker shall send to the Public Forum at least once per Nomic week a report containing the balance and all changes in the Mark accounts of all Players and all Nomic Entities that may possess Marks. (*Was: 516*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 517 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 517 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be a limited number of Marks. No Marks shall be created or destroyed except as explicitly allowed for in legislation. If a Rule states that Marks are to be transfered, but there is no source for those Marks, then the Rule shall have no legal force. If the Rule does state a source for the Marks, but that source does not Possess enough Marks, then all the Marks possessed by the source shall be transfered, and the remainder of the Marks shall be transfered as the source receives them. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 518 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 518 history: ... [orphaned text: Upon the passage of this Rule, 3 Marks shall be created for every Player in the Game, and given to those Players. If a new Player joins the Game, 3 Marks are created and given to that Player. If a Player leaves the Game, whatever Marks are in their possession are destroyed. If that same Player later joins the Game again, they shall not recieve any Marks. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 520 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 520 history: ... [orphaned text: On Monday, at noon in the time zone in which the Banker resides, each Player shall be given 1 Points for every 2 Marks which they possess, rounded down. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 521 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 521 history: ... [orphaned text: If all the Votes on a particular Proposal are FOR Votes, then the Player who proposed that Proposal shall recieve 3 Marks from the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 522 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 522 history: ... [orphaned text: At the end of each Game, the Speaker for the previous Game shall recieve 3 Marks, which are taken from the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 523 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 523 history: ... [orphaned text: The Banker shall not reveal how many Marks are in any other Player's possession to any other Player, except as allowed for in the Rules. The Banker shall reveal the number of Marks in the Bank to any Player who requests the information. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 525 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 525 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player trades one Mark to the Bank, and trades 10 Points to the Point Reserve, then that Player may Lock another Player's Marks account for a period of five days. To do so, that Player must notify the Banker, who shall then notify the Player whose account has been Locked that the account has been locked, but not who has Locked it. If a Player's Marks account has been Locked, then that Player shall not trade Marks to any other Player or to the Bank until his account is no longer Locked. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 533,1034 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 533 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 1034 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1347, 29 November 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995 text: The Bank shall tender Marks to any Entity which transfers Points to the Bank with the intent to receive Marks in exchange. Upon the receipt of Points from any Entity, accompanied by a message to the Banker from the Executor of that Entity indicating intent to purchase Marks, the Bank shall transfer to that Entity 1 Mark for each 25 Points thus transferred. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1691, 1 September 1995 text: An Entity which possesses Points is permitted to convert any or all of those Points to Marks by transferring those Points to the Bank, and by also informing the Banker that the transfer is for the purpose of purchasing Marks. Whenever the Bank receives Points from any Entity which are accompanied by a message from the Executor of that Entity to the Banker indicating that those Points are to be used to purchase Marks, the Bank shall transfer a commensurate number of Marks computed using the primary Mark Exchange Rate to that Entity's Treasury. This transfer shall be detected and reported by the Banker. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1743, 15 October 1995 text: An Entity which possesses Points in any of its Treasuries is permitted to convert any or all of those Points to Marks. E does so by sending a message to the Scorekeepor indicating that e wishes to do so, also specifying how many Points e wishes to convert, and the Treasury from which this Points are to be removed (if the Entity possess more than one Treasury). When such a message is sent, if the Treasury specified is owned by the Entity requesting the exchange and contains at least as many Points as are to be converted, then that many Points are transferred from that Treasury to the Bank, and, simultaneously, a commensurate number of Marks computed using the primary Mark Exchange Rate are transferred from the Bank to that Treasury. All these transfers shall be detected and reported by the Scorekeepor, as soon as possible after they take place. history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player wishes, e may buy Marks from the Bank. The Player must trade 25 Points to the Point Reserve. Then e shall send a message to the Banker notifying that Banker that such a Trade has been made for the purpose of buying Marks. When the Trade has been verified by the Banker, the above Player shall recieve 1 Mark from the Bank. ] [orphaned text: If a Player wishes, e may buy Marks from the Bank. The Player must trade 25 Points to the Point Reserve. Then e shall send a message to the Banker notifying that Banker that such a Trade has been made for the purpose of buying Marks. When the Trade has been verified by the Banker, the above Player shall recieve 1 Mark from the Bank. The Banker shall verify the Trade as soon as possible. (*Was: 533*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 534 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 534 history: ... [orphaned text: If a transfer indicated by the Rules is not made due to an insufficient number of Marks being possessed by the Entity which is losing Marks, the transfer shall be delayed as per other legislation. If a single Entity has more than one transfer which is being delayed for such a reason, these transfers shall be made in the order in which they became required by legislation. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 538 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 538 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player is convicted of breaking a rule, then the Player who first formally accused him of breaking that rule shall receive back any points which the accusing Player may have lost as a direct result of that accusation. In addition, he shall receive a reward of three additional points, or the number of points which the convicted player loses as a result of his conviction, whichever is less. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 542 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 542 history: ... [orphaned text: Whenever any quantity of Points mentioned in a Rule changes, the Designated Scorekeeper shall notify all other players of said Point change and the reasons for it. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 544,833 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 544 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 833 (Garth), 1 March 1994 text: When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters shall be counted for this determination. history: Amended by Rule 750, 1 March 1994 text: When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters shall be counted for this determination. (*Was: 544*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1554, 17 April 1995 text: When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Players shall be counted for this determination. (*Was: 544*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1702, 1 September 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 24 April 1996 text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2636, 12 July 1996 text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Points equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Points equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Points as a result of this Rule. The loss of points (but not the gain of points) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by the Assessor. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Mils equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Mils equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Marks as a result of this Rule. The loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Mil equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer loses a number of Mil equal to the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Proposer neither gains nor loses Marks as a result of this Rule. The loss of Marks (but not the gain of Marks) described in this Rule applies even to a Disinterested Proposal. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: ... history: Amended(8) [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... [orphaned text: At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if the Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal loses a number of Mil equal to difference of the number of AGAINST Votes and the number of FOR Votes. At the end of the Voting Period for an Interested Proposal, if the Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Proposer of that Proposal gains a number of Mil equal to difference of the number of FOR Votes and the number of AGAINST Votes. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. ] [orphaned text: When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. No points are awarded to or taken from Voters by this rule. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 548 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 548 history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 548 by Proposal 772 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 557 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 557 history: ... [orphaned text: Points shall be computed according to the Rules then in effect, then shall be rounded to one decimal place. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 559 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 559 by Proposal 559 (Wes), ca. Oct. 7 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1325, 22 November 1994 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of registered Players. Any person who is not currently a Player may register as one by sending a message to the Registrar requesting that they be registered. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players whenever a new Player or Players are added to the list. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1436, 21 February 1995 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players within one Week following any change to this list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1660, 14 August 1995 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players within one Week following any change to this list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar's salary shall be 5 points per week. text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players within one Week following any change to this list. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar's salary shall be 5 points per week. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall include a list of all currently registered Players in the Registrar's Report. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2451, 6 February 1996 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of Registered Players. The Registrar shall include a list of all currently registered Players in the Registrar's Report. Other duties may be assigned by other Rules. The Registrar shall receive a Salary of 4 Points. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar's Salary is 4 Points. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar's Salary is 4 Mils. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Null-Amended(9) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a weekly salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), 4 February 1999 text: There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a salary equal to 1.5 times the Basic Officer Salary. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), 2 June 1999 text: The Registrar There shall exist the Office of Registrar. The Registrar shall receive a salary as set in the last Treasuror's budget. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), 6 September 1999 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players and titles held by Players. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players. The Registrar's Report shall include the following: (i) A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname (if any), preferred email address, current Active/Inactive status. (ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end. (iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are. (iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered. (v) Each Player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive. (vi) Each Player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent. (vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service). history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4057 (harvel), 29 August 2000 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players. The Registrar's Report shall include the following: (i) A list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname (if any) and preferred email address. (ii) A list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end. (iii) A list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are. (iv) The most recent date on which each Player registered. (v) Each Player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive. (vi) Each Player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent. (vii) The identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service). history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready Players; (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are; (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered; (vi) each Player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive; (vii) each Player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service). history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4195 (Syllepsis), 26 July 2001 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of Players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered Players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the Player subject to the Grace Period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready Players; (iv) a list of Players who are Zombies, and who their Masters are; (v) the most recent date on which each Player registered; (vi) each Player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Active or Inactive; (vii) each Player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that Player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and (viii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service). (viii) A list of Players who are Monks. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4211 (harvel), 10 September 2001 text: There exists the Office of Registrar, whose responsibility it is to maintain a list of players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service); and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identities of the Distributor and the Speaker (and eir Term of Service); and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 4259 (root), 21 February 2002 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's Active/Inactive status, and the most recent date on which that player became Active or Inactive; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and preferred email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date on which that player's activity level changed; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 4435 (Murphy), 28 January 2003 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date on which that player's activity level changed; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 4563 (OscarMeyr), 6 April 2004 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Weekly Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date on which that player's activity level changed; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; (vii) the identity of the Distributor; and (viii) a list of players who are Monks. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 4616 (OscarMeyr), 1 October 2004 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Weekly Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date on which that player's activity level changed; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and (vii) the identity of the Distributor. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 4769 (Sherlock), 25 May 2005 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date on which that player's activity level changed; (vi) each player's Noisy/Quiet/Silent status, and the most recent date on which that player became Noisy, Quiet, or Silent; and (vii) the identity of the Distributor. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 4820 (Goethe), 10 July 2005 text: The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for maintaining the register of players. The Registrar's Bi-Weekly Report shall include all of the following information: (i) a list of all registered players, with their nicknames, if any, and listed email addresses; (ii) a list of all Grace Periods in progress, including the player subject to the Grace period, the time at which it started, and the time at which it will end; (iii) a list of all Unready players; (iv) the most recent date on which each registered player registered; (v) each player's activity level, and the most recent date and method by which that player's activity level changed; (vi) the identity of the Distributor. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 559 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 [orphaned text: There shall exist an Office called the Registrar. The Registrar has responsibility over maintaining the list of registered Players. Any person who is not currently a Player may register as one by sending a message to the Registrar requesting that they be registered. The Registrar shall post a list of all currently registered Players whenever a new Player or Players are added to the list. Upon initial passage of this Rule, the Registrar shall be the Mighty Speaker, and all previously established Players of this Game shall be considered to be registered. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 560,791 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 560 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 791 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 934 (Chuck), 14 July 1994 [orphaned text: There may be no more than PL Proposals up for Vote at any given time. "PL" is the Proposal Limit, which is defined to be 15. The Speaker shall enforce this by delaying the distribution of Proposals in excess of this number. This Rule takes precedence, when permitted, over other Rules which require sooner distribution. If Proposal "Schemes" exist, then for the purpose of the Proposal limit, a Scheme shall count as a single Proposal. (*Was: 560*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 568 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 568 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 904 (KoJen), 22 April 1994 [orphaned text: There shall be an Official known as the Auditor. The Auditor shall maintain a list of the scores of the Players, independently from the Scorekeepor. In doing so the Auditor must abide by all Rules governing scores and use his/her best judgment in determining these scores. Before the Scorekeepor publishes the list of scores, the Scorekeepor and the Auditor shall compare records, and reach agreement on the scores to be published by the Scorekeepor. The salary of the Auditor shall be equal to that of the Scorekeepor. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 574 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 574 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be an Entity known as the Vototron. The Vototron has three Votes for each Proposal. The Vototron holds two Point Caches per Proposal. These are known as the For Cache and the Against Cache for that Proposal. Any Player may give any number of Points to any of the Vototron's Point Caches, by sending a message to the Speaker stating the amount of Points and the Cache which these shall be given to. Immediately before the Voting Period of a Proposal expires, if one of the Vototron's Point Caches for that Proposal contains more Points than the other, the Vototron shall cast three Votes according to the name of that Cache. After the end of the Voting Period the Points given to the two Vototron Caches are transferred to the Point Reserve. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 592 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 592 history: ... [orphaned text: The validity of any Call for Judgement which has been submitted and accepted for judgement prior to passage of this rule may not be challenged by CFJ after passage of this rule. This rule takes precedence over any rule specifying whether any particular CFJ is valid. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 594 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 594 by Proposal 594 (KoJen), 21 October 1993 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If the Proposal is Adopted, then the Rule Change(s) contained within that Proposal shall take effect. All Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like Rule Changes, and shall be Numbered exactly like Rule Changes. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules. At the moment that Rule 105 is Transmuted, this Rule shall be Amended to read: A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If the Proposal is Adopted, then the Rule Change(s) contained within that Proposal shall take effect. No Proposal may Enact or Amend more than one Rule. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1323, 21 November 1994 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. The Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the least Index which is not less than the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all the Rule Changes within the Proposal to take effect. This paragraph yields to any Rule which may require a higher Adoption Index for a given Proposal. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Rule Changes. If a Proposal containing Rule Changes is adopted, the Rule Changes contained in the Proposal shall take effect in the order they appear in the Proposal. Unless another Rule states otherwise, the Adoption Index of a Proposal shall be the minimum Adoption Index which would allow all Rule Changes and Directives within the Proposal to take effect, or 1, whichever is greater. In no case may a Proposal have an Adoption Index of less than 1. history: Amended(3) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997 text: When a Proposal is adopted, its Power becomes equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any). history: Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4111 (Elysion), 20 February 2001 history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4327 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 text: When a Proposal takes effect: (a) if the Proposer is a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect, the Proposal's Power is set equal to its Voting Index; (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1; and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any). history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4328 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 text: When a Proposal takes effect: (a) if the Proposer is a Member of The Cabal (as explicitly defined by the Rules) when the Proposal takes effect, the Proposal's power is set equal to 4; (b) otherwise, its power is set equal to 1; and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any). history: Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 text: No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of another entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own. When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any). Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4349 (root), 20 July 2002 text: No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own. When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. The Adoption Index of a Proposal is the maximum of 1, the value requested by its Proposer (if any), and the value required for that Proposal by the Rules (if any). Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 4464 (root), 17 March 2003 text: No Rule may have Power less than 1 or greater than 4. Except as described in this Rule, no entity can set the Power of any entity to exceed the Power of the entity causing the Power to be so set. No entity may destroy or repeal an entity with Power greater than its own. When a Proposal takes effect, its Power shall be set equal to its Adoption Index, and the provisions contained in the text of the Proposal are implemented to the maximal extent permitted by the Rules. Provisions which are unclear, ambiguous, or inapplicable are ignored. In a Proposal containing more than one provision, each provision is severable from the others, unless the Proposal states otherwise. For the purpose of the Rules, the application of an adopted Proposal is a legal procedure for changing Nomic Properties. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: A proposal can, as part of its effect, enact a rule, specifying its content and optionally specifying its power and title. If the proposal does not specify the power, the rule shall have power equal to one. If the proposal specifies the power, then the rule shall have power equal to the minimum of four, the power of the proposal, and the power specified by the proposal. If the title is not specified, the Rulekeepor may select any title e sees fit. When a rule is enacted, the Rulekeepor shall assign it a number, which must be greater than any number previously assigned, and shall assign it a revision number of zero. This rule provides the only mechanism by which rules can be enacted. history: Repealed as Power=3 Rule 594 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 597 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 597 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1327, 22 November 1994 text: Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the proposal is not properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. history: ... [orphaned text: Every Proposal shall be headed with a Title. This Title shall not actually be a part of the Proposal itself and therefore shall not become a part of any Rule Enacted or Amended by that Proposal. If a Proposal is not headed with a Title, then the Player who submitted that Proposal shall be guilty of a Class B Crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 600 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 600 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 844 (Garth), 3 March 1994 [orphaned text: To formally Accuse a Player of committing a Crime, the Accusing Player must send a message to the Public Forum stating the Accused Player, the Class of Crime which e is being Accused of, and why e believes that the Accused Player is GUILTY. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 602 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 602 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 845 (Garth), 3 March 1994 [orphaned text: No Call for Judgement may cause a Player to be punished for a Crime, or to be declared GUILTY of a Crime. Such Judgements should instead be done through a Criminal Court. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 604 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 604 history: ... [orphaned text: Criminal Court may not be called for in regards to any Crime which has taken place more than ten days previously. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 605,846 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 605 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 846 (Garth), 3 March 1994 text: A Player may only be found Guilty once for a particular instance of a particular Crime. If a Player admits to being Guilty while a Criminal Court is in session to find that Player Guilty, e shall suffer the penalties as if e had been found Guilty by a Criminal Court. If a Player admits to being Guilty before Criminal Court has been called, then a Criminal Court shall not be called for that instance of that Crime, and the Player shall suffer any penalties for committing the Crime. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules that define when a Criminal Court should be called. history: Amended by Rule 750, 3 March 1994 text: A Player may only be found Guilty once for a particular instance of a particular Crime. If a Player admits to being Guilty while a Criminal Court is in session to find that Player Guilty, e shall suffer the penalties as if e had been found Guilty by a Criminal Court. If a Player admits to being Guilty before Criminal Court has been called, then a Criminal Court shall not be called for that instance of that Crime, and the Player shall suffer any penalties for committing the Crime. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules that define when a Criminal Court should be called. (*Was: 605*) history: ... [orphaned text: A Player may only be found GUILTY once for a particular instance of a particular Crime. If a Player admits to being GUILTY while a Criminal Court is in session to find that Player GUILTY, e shall suffer the penalties as if e had been found GUILTY by a Criminal Court. If a Player admits to being GUILTY before Criminal Court has been called, then a Criminal Court shall not be called for that instance of that Crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 608,941 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 608 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 941 (KoJen), 14 July 1994 text: If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2; Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5; Class D = 10. Responsibility for notifying the Scorekeepor of these penalties is given to the Clerk of the Courts, who must notify the Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the publication of the judgement finding em guilty; preferably at the same time as this publication, and absolutely no later than one Week. history: Amended by Rule 750, 14 July 1994 text: If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2; Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5; Class D = 10. Responsibility for notifying the Scorekeepor of these penalties is given to the Clerk of the Courts, who must notify the Scorekeepor as soon as possible following the publication of the judgement finding em guilty; preferably at the same time as this publication, and absolutely no later than one Week. (*Was: 608*) history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because a Criminal Court has indicated so, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime of which e is Guilty of: Class A = 2; Class B = 5; Class C = 8; Class D = 15. If a Player is found Guilty of a Crime because that Player publicly admitted such, e shall lose Points as follows according to the Class of Crime which e is Guilty of: Class A = 1; Class B = 3; Class C = 5; Class D = 10. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 610 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 610 history: ... [orphaned text: Marks and Coins are Currencies. Each type of Coin is a separate Currency. Other rules may define other Currencies, but nothing is a Currency unless explicitly defined as such by a rule. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 611 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 611 history: ... [orphaned text: Players may own any type of Currency. No non-player Nomic entity may own Currencies except as provided for in the Rules. The number of each type of Currency owned by each player or other Nomic entity must be non-negative, and must be an integer. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 612 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 612 history: ... [orphaned text: A Player is defined as the Recordkeepor for a Currency if e is required to keep an accurate record of the number of that Currency owned by each player and non-player Nomic entity which is permitted to own that Currency. The Recordkeepor for each type of Coin shall be the Vizier of the Group corresponding to that type of Coin. Other rules may establish Recordkeepors for other Currencies. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 613 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 613 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Currency exists and no rule (other than this one) exists which specifies a Recordkeepor for that Currency, then the Banker shall be the Recordkeepor for that Currency. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 614 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 614 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1470, 8 March 1995 text: A player may voluntarily transfer any Currency in eir possession to any other player for any purpose by sending such a message to the Recordkeepor for that Currency, within the following limits: a) a player may only transfer a positive number of a Currency b) a player may not transfer more of a Currency than e currently has. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. history: ... [orphaned text: A player may voluntarily transfer any Currency to any other player for any purpose by sending such a message to the Recordkeepor for that Currency, within the following limits: a) a player may only transfer a positive number of a Currency b) a player may not transfer more of a Currency than e currently has. This rule applies to Currencies in general, and thus defers to rules for specific Currencies. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 615 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 615 history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 615 by Proposal 752 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 627 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 627 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 949 (Stella?), 14 July 1994 [orphaned text: Upon passage of this Rule 20 Marks will be created as starting capital of the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 628 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 628 history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be a quantity of Points known as the Point Reserve. Any action which causes Points to be taken from any Entity, but does not specify where these Points are to be given, shall give these Points to the Point Reserve. The Scorekeepor shall keep score of the number of Points in the Point Reserve. On adoption of this Rule, the Point Reserve will contain 100 Points. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 637 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 637 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Proposal seeks to Amend or Repeal a Rule, that Proposal must refer to that Rule either by that Rule's number or by its Title as given in the latest distributed Current Rule Set. If a Proposal seeks to Amend a Rule, that Proposal must explicitly state how in one of two ways: Either the Proposal must restate the entire Rule, or the Proposal must quote the phrases or words to be deleted (if any) and the phrases or words to be inserted (as well as the location of such insertion) or appended (if any). If a Proposal attempts to Ammend a Rule without following these guidelines, it shall not be considered to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 640 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 640 history: ... [orphaned text: If for any reason, the post of Speaker becomes vacant during a Game, it will be filled in the same way as a vacant Office. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 643 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 643 history: ... [orphaned text: Any time X Stock (where X is a Player) change owner, Player X will receive 3 Points from the selling Player. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 646,767 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 646 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 767 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Group has N Members then it has N Votes for each Proposal in addition to those of its Membership. The Ordinances of a Group may determine how and when the Group casts its Votes; if the Ordinances are silent on this issue then the Group may not cast its Votes. The Votes of the Group are cast when the Vizier sends a message to the Speaker to that effect during the Voting Period and this action is legitimate insofar as the Ordinances are concerned. (*Was: 646*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 649 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 649 by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, 22 November 1994 text: 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. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. 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. The Registrar shall keep track of all Patent Titles which have been granted. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995 text: 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. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. 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. The Registrar shall keep track of which Patent Titles have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, and shall publish this information in the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: 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. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. 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. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. text: 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. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. 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. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, 3 October 1996 text: 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. A Proposal containing a Directive to Award a Patent Title must have an Adoption Index of at least 1. 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. history: Amended(5) Cosmetically by Proposal 2807 (Andre), 8 February 1997 text: 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. history: Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), 26 March 1997 text: Let there exist a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles may be possessed only by persons. The awarding of Patent Titles will generally be by Proposal, but this should not be taken to preclude any other means of award. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3488 (Zefram; disi.), 19 May 1997 text: There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the exception of any such events of which the Rules state that they have no Historical Significance. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), 6 April 1999 text: There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the exception of any such Titles which have no Historical Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined by the Rules to have no Historical SIgnificance has none. In addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then that Title also has no Historical Significance. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), 12 May 1999 text: There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Patent Titles that have been awarded, and to whom they have been awarded, with the exception of any such Titles which have no Historical Significance. For the purposes of this Rule, any Title defined by the Rules to have no Historical Significance has none. In addition, the Registrar may Act to declare any Title not referred to in th Rules to be without Historical Significance Without Objection. If such an action successfully occurs, then that Title also has no Historical Significance. This list is known as the Gold Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), 19 September 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), 27 September 1999 text: There is a class of entities known as Patent Titles. Patent Titles can be possessed only by persons. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance, but the Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance. As part of eir Report, the Herald shall maintain a list of each Patent Title with Historical Significance that has been awarded and not subsequently revoked, and to whom it has been awarded. history: Amended(???) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), 8 May 2000 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance. text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. Only persons may possess Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall announce in a Public Forum that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Unless otherwise specified, each Patent Title has Historical Significance. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause that Title to lose its Historical Significance. That Title immediately gains Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, cause a Title be switched from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. As soon as possible after a Patent Title award or revocation which occurs automatically occurs, the Herald shall publicly announce that such an award or revocation has occurred, and which Title has been awarded to or revoked from which person or persons. Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title; the Patent Title is Borne by the person, and the person is its Bearor. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. Only persons may Bear Patent Titles. As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or revoke that Patent Title. Significance is a stuck switch for Patent Titles with states Historical, Hysterical, and Ephemeral. The Herald may, Without Objection, flip a Title from Historical Significance to Hysterical Significance. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or revoke that Patent Title. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after the Rules state that a Patent title shall be awarded or revoked, the Herald shall publicly award or revoke that Patent Title. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's monthly report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's monthly report shall include a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is an office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's monthly report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007 text: A Patent Title is a legal item of recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial question contesting the validity of the conditions. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from a person, that person ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one person Bears, with a list of which persons Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. history: Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008 text: A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial question contesting the validity of the conditions. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a list of which entities Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise. history: Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 history: Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 text: A Patent Title is a legal item given in recognition of a person's distinction. The herald is a low-priority office; its holder is responsible for tracking patent titles. A Patent Title CAN only be awarded by a proposal, or by the announcement of a person specifically authorized by the Rules to make that award. A person so authorized SHALL make the award as soon as possible as the conditions authorizing em to make the award are posted publicly, unless there is an open judicial question contesting the validity of the conditions. Awarding or revoking a Patent Title by Proposal is a secured change. When a Patent Title is awarded to a person, that person is said to Bear that Patent Title. When a Patent Title is revoked from an entity, that entity ceases to Bear that Patent Title. The status of Bearing a Patent Title can only be changed as explicitly set out in the Rules. The Herald's report includes a list of each Patent Title that at least one entity Bears, with a list of which entities Bear it. As soon as possible after a patent title is awarded or revoked, the herald SHALL announce the award or revocation. When a patent title is used as a noun to refer to bearers of the patent title, it is assumed to refer only to persons who Bear that patent title unless context clearly indicates otherwise. history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be a new Nomic Entity known as a Patent Title. A Player may nominate a person for a Patent Title by submitting a Proposal to that effect. If this Proposal passes, the person in question shall be known to all Players by that Patent Title. If the Proposal 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. The Registrar shall keep track of all Patent Titles which have been granted. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 650,799,912 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 650 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 799 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 912 (Garth), 4 May 1994 text: There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as follows: (Award a Patent Title) shall be used if the Proposal does not Enact a Rule, but awards an existing Patent Title to a person. (Run for Office) shall be used if a Proposal seeks to place a Player in Office, according to the Rules for Offices. (*Was: 650*) history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994 text: There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as follows: (Award a Patent Title) shall be used if the Proposal does not Enact a Rule, but awards an existing Patent Title to a person. (Run for Office) shall be used if a Proposal seeks to place a Player in Office, according to the Rules for Offices. (*Was: 650/799*) history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be additional legal Declarations which are as follows: (Award a Patent Title) shall be used if the Proposal does not Enact a Rule, but awards an existing Patent Title to a person. (Appeal by Proposal) shall be used for Proposals which seek to overturn a Judgement. (Run for Office) shall be used if a Proposal seeks to place a Player in Office, according to the Rules for Offices. (*Was: 650*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 651 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 651 by Proposal 651 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), 13 February 2001 text: Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or who never were Players. No Player may Bear the Patent Title of Hero. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 4173 (Goethe), 26 June 2001 text: Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be awarded to those persons who gave outstanding service to Agora Nomic or Nomics as a whole, but who are no longer Players or who never were Players. If a person Bearing the Patent Title of Hero is registered as a Player, e shall cease to Bear that Patent Title. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 651 by Proposal 4759 (Manu, Sherlock), 15 May 2005 [orphaned text: Let there be the Patent Title known as Hero, which shall be given to those persons who gave outstanding service to eNomic, but who are no longer Players or who never were Players. No Player may hold the Patent Title of Hero. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 652 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 652 history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be known the Patent Title of First Speaker. This Patent Title shall be given to Michael Norrish. No other person may hold this Patent Title at any time. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 653 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 653 history: ... [orphaned text: Any Player who holds a Patent Title may refer to themselves by that Patent Title. Any Player who refers to themselves with a Patent Title which they do not possess, or claims to possess a Patent Title which they do not posses, shall be guilty of a Class B Crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 654,755 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 654 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 755 (KoJen), 30 November 1993 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of eNomic, or who has Won a Game of eNomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal. If a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X", substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped Player to Win. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2433, 30 January 1996 text: Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of Agora Nomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal. If a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X", substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped Player to Win. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of Agora Nomic, or who has Won a Game of Agora Nomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, 3 October 1996 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(5) by Rule 755, 3 October 1996 text: There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners' Cups. There are 16 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule. Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance. The Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup The first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2721, 23 October 1996 text: There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners' Cups. There are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule. Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance. The Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup The first three groups are know, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: There is a class of Patent Titles known as Winners' Cups. There are 13 different Cups, ranked in ascending order, the full list of which is defined in this Rule. Whenever a Player Wins a Game, e shall be awarded the lowest Cup, if e has never been awarded a Cup previously; if e already is the holder of a Cup, e shall be awarded the Cup immediately above the one e already holds, if it exists. Any other Cups previously held shall be immediately revoked and lose any Historical Significance. The Cups are : * (1) Paper Cup, (2) Tin Cup, (3) Glass Cup, (4) Crystal Cup * (5) Bronze Cup, (6) Silver Cup, (7) Gold Cup, (8) Platinum Cup * (9) Amber Cup, (10) Ruby Cup, (11) Emerald Cup, (12) Diamond Cup * (13) Supreme Cup The first three groups are known, respectively, as the Plain Cups, the Noble Cups and the Extravagant Cups. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 755 by Proposal 3833 (Vlad), 15 February 1999 [orphaned text: Let there be known the Patent Title known as Champion. This Patent Title shall be given to every Player who Wins a Game of eNomic, or who has Won a Game of eNomic. This Patent Title shall be awarded automatically, without need for a Proposal. If a Player Wins a Game despite a handicap factor X, then that Player shall instead receive the Patent Title "Champion*X", substituting for X the ratio of the Points required for that Player to Win, over the Points required for an unhandicapped Player to Win. (*Was: 654*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 655 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 655 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be an Office known as the Sweepstakes Officer. The Sweepstakes Officer shall be responsible for the weekly Lottery and for the secret Word Sweepstakes, as well as any other duties which are determined by future legislation. The Sweepstakes Officer shall receive 2 Points at the end of each seven days of holding Office, starting from the date which e took Office. The Sweepstakes Officer shall be chosen as defined in other legislation. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 657 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 657 history: ... [orphaned text: No Rule which contains a reference to another Rule by Number may be Transmuted into an Immutable Rule. Any Propsal which attempts to do this shall be invalid and shall not be Voted upon. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 662 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 662 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1486, 15 March 1995 text: A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1677, 22 August 1995 text: A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explicitly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. history: Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 14 January 1996 text: A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Rules generally ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that a specific Ordinance, Regulation, or Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege, either implicitly or explicitly, that the Ordinances of a specific Group or the Regulations of a specific Contract ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explicitly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: ... [orphaned text: A "Move" refers to any specific action taken by a Player or group of Players in the context of the game. Any invocation of Judgement must satisfy one or more of the following conditions: - clearly allege that a specific Move is illegal; - clearly allege that a specific Rule is illegal or lacking in legal force, in whole or in part; - clearly allege that a specific Rule ought to be interpreted in a certain way. - clearly allege that the current published game state is incorrect, and in what respects. A CFJ which does not satisfy at least one of the above conditions shall be deemed invalid and shall not be accepted for Judgement by the Clerk of the Courts. However, this Rule shall defer to rules which explictly permit CFJs that do not necessarily meet the above conditions. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 663 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 663 by Proposal 663, 2 November 1993 text: There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE or FALSE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNDECIDED as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNDECIDED as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force. This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1487, 15 March 1995 text: There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force. This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: There shall be an entity known as an Injunction, which may accompany certain Judgements of TRUE, FALSE, or UNDECIDABLE as provided in the rules. An Injunction is a statement or series of statements specifying an action or actions which must take place. If a Judgement is accompanied by an Injunction, that Injunction must be published with the Judgement. All players must abide by the Injunction beginning no later than 72 hours after its publication unless one of the following conditions then apply: - The Judgement which the Injunction accompanies is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. - The validity of the Injunction itself is questioned by a pending CFJ. - A Judgement upholding the validity of the Injunction is undergoing appeal, currently UNKNOWN as a consequence of the appeal process, or, has been appealed and SUSTAINED, but a proposal has been published which would overturn that decision if passed, and said proposal has not failed. A Judgement may not be accompanied by an Injunction unless it is specifically permitted elsewhere in the rules. An Injunction must be completely consistent with all rules in effect at the time of issuance, and must be completely relevant to the matter addressed in the corresponding judgement. If any Player believes that an Injunction or any part of it does not meet the criteria for a valid Injunction, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If the resulting Judgement supports the contention that the criteria are not met, the Injunction shall be considered illegal and shall have no legal force. This rule takes precedence over all rules governing Injunctions. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction. An Injunction, in order to be legally made, must: * specify the Player or Players to whom it applies and the Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to perform (or refrain from performing). * accompany the Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which the Player issuing the Injunction is the Judge; and * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a Player or Players in the manner specified. An Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, has no legal effect. A Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies. history: Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 18 June 1996 text: Judges shall, in certain situations when specifically authorized by the Rules, have the power to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform (or refrain from performing) one or more Actions. Such an order is called an Injunction. An Injunction, in order to be legally made, must: * specify the Player or Players to whom it applies and the Action or Actions that Player or Players are required to perform (or refrain from performing). * accompany the Judgement of a Call for Judgement, of which the Player issuing the Injunction is the Judge; and * be an Injunction issued in a situation where the Rules specifically permit the Judge an Injunction to restrain a Player or Players in the manner specified. An Injunction which does not meet these criteria, or which has otherwise been issued in a manner which is not consistent with the Rules, has no legal effect. A Judge issues an Injunction by transmitting it to the Clerk of the Courts simultaneously with the Judgement it accompanies. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2684, 3 October 1996 text: A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more actions. Such an order is called an Injunction. To be legally made, an Injunction must: i) Specify the Player(s) to whom it applies. ii) Specify the action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform or refrain from performing. iii) Be sent to the CotC simultaneously with a Judgement which has been legally made by the Judge. iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules. v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules. An Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect. history: Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 3509 (Harlequin), 16 June 1997 text: A Judge is permitted to issue orders requiring one or more Players to perform, or refrain from performing, one or more actions. Such an order is called an Injunction. To be legally made, an Injunction must: i) Specify the Player(s) to whom it applies. ii) Specify the action(s) the Player(s) are required to perform or refrain from performing. iii) Either be attached to a legally made Judgement at the time that Judgement is originally delivered to the Cotc, or be legally made by the Board of Appeals in an Appeal of an Injunction. iv) Be of a type explicitly defined in the Rules. v) Be issued in a manner consistent with the Rules. An Injunction which does not meet these criteria has no effect. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 663 by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 664 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 664 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Judge hands down an Injunction which is determined illegal by a CFJ, then a Criminal Court may find em GUILTY of a Class C crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 665 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 665 by Proposal 665, 2 November 1993 text: If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, and any resulting adjustments to the published game state. The adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and these adjustments must only undo actions which were a direct or indirect result of that Move. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1642, 1 August 1995 text: If a CFJ alleges that a specific Move is illegal, and the Judgement supports the allegation, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injunction specifying that the move is to be retracted, if the Judge thinks it is appropriate to do so. The Judge may also issue an Injunction specifying any adjustments to the published game state which result from the allegation being supported. These adjustments to the game state must have been unambiguously specified within the CFJ, and they must be adjustments which occur as a direct or indirect result of the allegation being supported. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 669 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 669 history: ... [orphaned text: If the rules require a Player to obey an Injunction and e fails to do so, then a Criminal Court may find that Player GUILTY of a Class C crime. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 675 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 675 history: ... [orphaned text: If the Office of Clerk of the Courts becomes vacant, then a replacement shall be appointed randomly by the Speaker from the list of Active Players, excluding the Speaker and the most recent Clerk of the Courts. A tentative replacement shall be asked if e wants the Office, and if not, a new one shall be selected in the same manner. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule which may seem to require the Clerk of the Courts to fill a vacant Office of Clerk of the Courts. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 676 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 676 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1315, 12 November 1994 text: Add to the Registrar's duties the following: Responsibility for maintaining the two following "phone books": 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. Some latitude is granted to the Registrar in the formatting of these Directories. If necessary, restrictions will be imposed. The Registrar shall post them whenever e is required to post a list of Players. Additionally, e shall provide this information to any Player upon request. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, 22 August 1995 text: Add to the Registrar's duties the following: Responsibility for maintaining the two following "phone books": 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(3) by Proposal 1739, 15 October 1995 text: 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(4) by Proposal 2532, 10 March 1996 text: The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Registered Players, with their Nomic nickname, preferred email address, current On/Off Hold status, and the date the Player last Registered or went On or Off Hold. This list is known as the White Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. The Registrar shall maintain a list of all Offices and other official positions within Agora (such as Speaker), with the Nomic nickname of the holder of each position, and (in the case of Offices) when the last Election for that Office was and whether the Office is held temporarily. This list is known as the Blue Pages, and is part of the Registrar's Report. history: ... [orphaned text: Add to the Registrar's duties the following: Responsibility for maintaining the two following "phone books": 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: (A) - active player; (H) - on hold; (L) - left the Game. 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. Some latitude is granted to the Registrar in the formatting of these Directories. If necessary, restrictions will be imposed. The Registrar shall post them whenever e is required to post a list of Players. Additionally, e shall provide this information to any Player upon request. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 677,785 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 677 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 785 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1424, 7 February 1995 text: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned. If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession. The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker's materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N Points upon becoming a Voter, where N is the number of points required for that player to win at the moment e becomes a Voter. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995 text: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if e does not, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned. If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession. The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker's materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2533, 13 March 1996 text: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned. If the Speaker has Abandoned, then if there is already a Speaker-Elect e immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. If not, a new Speaker shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere, with the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce eir Presence as the Arbiter of Succession. The new Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker's materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the new Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. A Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996 text: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned. If the Speaker has Abandoned, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. A Speaker who Abandons commits a Class A Crime. history: ... history: Amended(5) text: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e may send a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if no communication from the Speaker is sent to all Players or to the Public Forum within that period, and the Speaker has not changed in that week, e is defined to have Abandoned. If the Speaker has Abandoned, then the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect immediately becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. A Speaker who Abandons commits the Crime of Speaker Abandonment, a Class A Crime. history: ... [orphaned text: If the Speaker has abandoned eir post, another new, Temporary Speaker is selected according to the "Rules of Succession", or if no such rules are defined, the other Player not on hold with the highest Score becomes the temporary Speaker. This does not force the Game to be over in this case, and Scores are not reset to 0. The Game continues until a Player Wins, at which time a new Game is begun and the Winner becomes the real Speaker. The Temporary Speaker shall make reasonable effort to obtain the former Speaker's materials: proposal queue, voting records, etc. but if this is not possible, then the Temporary Speaker shall request that these be resubmitted by the Players. If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, e has eir score set to minus 2N Points immediately, where N is the number of Points required for a Player to Win the Game. Abandonment is determined as follows: If any Player suspects that the Speaker has Abandoned, e sends a message to all Players calling on the Speaker to announce eir presence. The Speaker must reply to all Players within one week; if e does not, e is considered to have Abandoned. (*Was: 677*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 679 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 679 history: ... [orphaned text: If a Player is selected to perform the role of Temporary Speaker, and e accepts, then e shall be compensated exactly as the Speaker would have been at the end of the Game, instead of the Speaker, who is not compensated. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would provide a reward to the Speaker at the end of the Game. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 680,786 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 680 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 786 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1426, 7 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1539, 4 April 1995 text: When a Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: Promotor Assessor Justiciar Clerk of the Courts Assistant Rulekeepor Registrar Archivist with the order determined at the time the Call for Volunteers is made. Any Rule which requires a Speaker or Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule takes precedence over such Rules. When the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce that fact to the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All Voters who are willing to fill the position shall indicate such in a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers. As soon as possible after the end of the three-day period, and within four days after the end of that three-day period, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, of those who indicated a willingness to fill the position, is highest on the order of succession. That Voter shall immediately become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a Voter. The Arbitration Period is defined as the period in the Order of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending with: 1) the announcement by the Arbiter of Succession of the new Speaker or Speaker-Elect; 2) the filling of the position to be filled by another method; 3) the time when it becomes no longer necessary to complete the Order of Succession, according to other Rules; 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued; whichever comes first. If the Arbitration Period ends without any of the first three criteria for the end of the Arbitration Period being fulfilled, then a new Order of Succession shall begin to fill the required position, with the first Voter to post eir willingness to the Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters who have already served as Arbiter of Succession for this particular requirement to fill the position. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2500, 3 March 1996 text: When a Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: Promotor Assessor Justiciar Clerk of the Courts Rulekeepor Registrar Archivist with the order determined at the time the Call for Volunteers is made. Any Rule which requires a Speaker or Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, a Speaker or Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule, and this Rule takes precedence over such Rules. When the position of Speaker or Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce that fact to the Public Forum in a Call for Volunteers. All Voters who are willing to fill the position shall indicate such in a message to the Arbiter of Succession, within three days of the Call for Volunteers. If there are no volunteers, the Arbiter of Succession shall make another Call for Volunteers. As soon as possible after the end of the three-day period, and within four days after the end of that three-day period, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Voter, of those who indicated a willingness to fill the position, is highest on the order of succession. That Voter shall immediately become Speaker or Speaker-Elect, whichever position was to be filled. If e becomes Speaker, the old Speaker shall become a Voter. The Arbitration Period is defined as the period in the Order of Succession starting with the Call for Volunteers and ending with: 1) the announcement by the Arbiter of Succession of the new Speaker or Speaker-Elect; 2) the filling of the position to be filled by another method; 3) the time when it becomes no longer necessary to complete the Order of Succession, according to other Rules; 4) or seven days after the Call for Volunteers is issued; whichever comes first. If the Arbitration Period ends without any of the first three criteria for the end of the Arbitration Period being fulfilled, then a new Order of Succession shall begin to fill the required position, with the first Voter to post eir willingness to the Public Forum as Arbiter of Succession, excluding any Voters who have already served as Arbiter of Succession for this particular requirement to fill the position. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: Promotor Assessor Justiciar Clerk of the Courts Rulekeepor Registrar Archivist This list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.) When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so. During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline. As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect. Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: Promotor Assessor Justiciar Clerk of the Courts Rulekeepor Registrar Archivist This list shall specifically exclude the Speaker, and Players who are On Hold. Its order is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.) When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so. During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline. As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect. Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. history: Amended(6) Substantially by Proposal 2828 (Zefram), 7 March 1997 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar the Archivist all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.) When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so. During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline. As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect. Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3787 (Steve), 8 September 1998 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.) When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so. During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline. As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect. Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. Any Rule which requires the Office of Speaker-Elect to be filled according to the Order of Succession must specify an Arbiter of Succession; if it does not, the Speaker-Elect shall not be chosen according to that Rule. This Rule takes precedence over such Rules. (If this would ever result in the Speaker filling the Office of Speaker-Elect, then the Speaker-Elect shall instead be filled by the Order of Succession, with the Speaker as Arbiter of Succession.) When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled, the Arbiter of Succession shall, as soon as possible, announce in the Public Forum that the Office of Speaker-Elect is being temporarily filled by this Rule. Once this announcement has been made, each Player has three days to decline to fill the Office by sending a message to the Arbiter stating e does so. During this three day period, the Office of Speaker-Elect is held by that Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not yet declined to the Arbiter. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. At the end of the three days, the Office is filled by the Active Player highest on the list of succession who did not decline the Office, and that player may no longer decline. As soon as possible after, and within four days of, the filling of the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Arbiter of Succession shall announce which Active Player is now the Speaker-Elect. Announcements by the Arbiter have no effect on the identity of the Speaker-Elect. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3974 (Elysion), 14 February 2000 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled temporarily according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts the Rulekeepor the Registrar all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. If there is ever no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not declined since there was last an electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4049 (Elysion), 15 August 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4071 (Steve), 14 September 2000 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. If there is ever no electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not declined since there was last an electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. A Player declines by sending a message to the Public Forum stating e does so. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that the Speaker does not appear in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. If there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: When the Office of Speaker-Elect is to be filled according to the Order of Succession, that order is defined to be: the Promotor the Registrar the Rulekeepor the Assessor the Justiciar the Clerk of the Courts all Officers in order of most recent registration all Active Players in order of most recent registration except that neither the Speaker nor any Unready Player appears in the Order. The Order of Succession is determined at the time the Office is to be filled. If there is ever no Electee for the Office of Speaker-Elect, the Office shall be held by the Active Player highest in the order of succession who has not publicly declined since there was last an Electee to the Office of Speaker-Elect. If there is only one Active Player in the order of succession who has not declined, that Player may not decline. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 text: When the rules require that a conclave be convened, and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall announce that e convenes a conclave, specifying a collection of cardinals and indicating that those cardinals are to convene a conclave. Provided that: (a) the rules require that the conclave be convened; (b) no competing conclave is currently convened; and (c) the collection consists of qualified cardinals, then as of such an announcement, a conclave consisting of the qualified cardinals is convened. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the rules specify otherwise. The first seven days following the convening of a conclave constitute the posturing period. During the posturing period, a qualified cardinal may announce eir intent to become a pope. Any other player may publicly support or revoke support for a cardinal's claim until the posturing period ends. As soon as possible after the posturing period ends, the ADoP shall perform the following actions in order: (a) E shall determine the cardinal club, which is the collection of qualified cardinals with positive support from the populace and at least as much unwithdrawn support as any other qualified cardinal. (b) If the cardinal club has no members, e shall announce this fact, and announce the conclave was inconclusive. (c) If the cardinal club has at least one member, e shall select one of its members to be pope, then publish the list of members of the cardinal club, indicating which member is to become a pope. That member becomes a pope as of this announcement. The ADoP's announcement in (b) or (c) concludes the conclave. If the conclave was inconclusive, eir announcement of this fact shall constitute a valid call to conclave. If the conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive; upon such an announcement, the conclave shall conclude with an inconclusive result, and a conclave must be convened. If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP's announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4836 (Goethe, Maud), 2 October 2005 text: When the rules require that a conclave be convened and no competing conclave is currently convened, then as soon as possible, the Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) shall convene a conclave by announcement, specifying the collection of qualified cardinals. A cardinal is qualified for a conclave unless the rules specify otherwise. The announcement is ineffective if the ADoP is not required to convene a conclave or eir announcement does not list all and only the cardinals qualified for that conclave. However, if errors are not announced until after 7 days after the conclave concludes, the results shall stand. The convening of a conclave initiates an Agoran Decision to determine the Pope, a decision in which quorum is zero, the voting period is 7 days, all Players are eligible voters, all qualified cardinals are valid options as long as they remain qualified cardinals, and the ADoP has the privilege of resolving ties as for elections. The ADoP's announcement of the cardinal chosen by Agora makes that cardinal the pope and concludes the conclave. If no cardinal may be legally chosen by Agora, the ADoP shall so announce, and the conclave concludes as a cliffhanger. If a conclave has not concluded within a fortnight from the time it was convened, any player may announce that it is inconclusive and thus conclude it as a cliffhanger. When an conclave concludes as a cliffhanger, this canon calls for a consecutive conclave to be convened to calculate the correct cardinal. If the office of ADoP is ever vacant, or the identity of its holder cannot be determined with reasonable certainty, then the first player who announces that e convenes a conclave, with eir announcement adhering to the conditions for the ADoP's announcement, shall then be permitted and required to perform the actions that would have been required of the ADoP for that conclave. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 786 by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 [orphaned text: When a Speaker is to be replaced according to the "Rules of Succession", that order is defined to be: Archivist Clerk of the Courts Rulekeepor Distributor When a replacement Speaker is required, all Players who are willing to become Speaker shall indicate such in a message, sent within three days of the Abandonment or resignation of the Speaker. The old Speaker may not send such a message. This message shall be sent to the Speaker, in the case of a Speaker voluntarily giving up his position; or to the first Player who called for the Speaker to announce his presence, in the case of an Abandoned Speaker. After three days, the Player ranking highest on the list of succession, out of those who indicated a willingness to become Speaker, shall become Speaker. (*Was: 680*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 681 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 681 by Proposal 681 (KoJen), ca. Oct. 29 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1423, 7 February 1995 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. If a Speaker is replaced in this manner, e loses 10 points upon becoming a Voter, and, if the resulting score is greater than the average score of all Players, eir score is reset to the average of all Players. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1695, 1 September 1995 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 25 Mark, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 25 Marks, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2604, 26 May 1996 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players. If there is already a Speaker-Elect, e remains Speaker-Elect. If not, a Speaker-Elect is chosen according to the Order of Succession, defined elsewhere in the Rules, with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. If a Speaker-Elect chosen by this method ceases to be a Player, a new Speaker-Elect shall be chosen according to the Order of Succession with the Speaker as the Arbiter of Succession. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2661, 7 September 1996 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be prevented from Winning until the start of the next Game. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2697, 10 October 1996 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 5 Mil, and e shall further be prevented from nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next quarter. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 1 VT, and e shall further be prevented from nominating eimself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next quarter. history: Amended(8) Cosmetically by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997 text: The Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership by announcing the fact to all Players, at which point the Player who holds the Office of Speaker-Elect shall becomes Speaker, and the old Speaker ceases to be Speaker. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up Speakership in this manner, the former Speaker shall lose 1 VT, and e shall further be prevented from nominating emself for Speaker-Elect until the start of the next quarter. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3703 (Steve), 9 March 1998 text: If the Speaker announces in the Public Forum that e is giving up the Speakership voluntarily, a Speaker Transition occurs. As soon as possible after the Transition is completed, the new Speaker shall bill the former Speaker one Voting Token. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter, whichever is longest. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 text: If the Speaker announces in the Public Forum that e is giving up the Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs. This Infraction is to be reported by the new Speaker once the Transition is complete. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter, whichever is longest. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: If the Speaker publicly announces that e is giving up the Speakership voluntarily, e commits the Class 0.2 Infraction of Resigning the Speakership, and a Speaker Transition occurs. This Infraction is to be reported by the new Speaker once the Transition is complete. When a Speaker voluntarily gives up the Speakership in this manner, e is prevented from nominating emself for the Office of Speaker-Elect for a period lasting two weeks, or until the start of the next quarter, whichever is longest. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4798 (Maud, Goethe), 6 June 2005 text: A conclave must be convened whenever any of the following events occur: (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership; (b) the Speaker becomes inactive; (c) the Herald confirms an allegation that the Speaker is lawless; (d) a valid notice of deregistration naming the Speaker is published; (e) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for the conclave; (f) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals for the conclave; (g) no pope has become Speaker in the past six months; (h) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker; or (i) a conclave has concluded with an inconclusive result. So there's always hope that you can be pope. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 text: Agora exits from Conclave whenever a player becomes a pope. Agora enters into Conclave whenever there is no pope and one of the following triggering events occurs: (a) the Speaker resigns the Speakership, becomes inactive, or otherwise ceases to be Speaker without another player being installed as Speaker; (b) the success of a Call for Revolt is announced, and the Speaker was abiding at the time of the Call for Revolt, in which case the rebellious cardinals are the only qualified cardinals; (c) two or more cardinals simultaneously win the game, in which case these cardinals are the only qualified cardinals; (d) no pope has become Speaker for the past six months; or (e) a pope ceases to be pope without becoming Speaker. As soon as possible after Agora enters into conclave, the Associate Director of Personnel must announce the fact and publish a list of qualified cardinals. All cardinals are considered qualified unless specifically restricted by the particular triggering event. If Agora is already in conclave when a triggering event occurs, Agora remains in conclave, but the qualification of each cardinal is modified to reflect the more recent event. While Agora is in conclave, any player may make a qualified Cardinal into a pope, with Agoran consent. If the legality of this action is not challenged within seven days of it being attempted, then it shall be allowed to stand, even if is subsequently found to be illegal. So there's always hope that you can be pope. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 681 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 [orphaned text: A Speaker may voluntarily give up Speakership, by announcing the fact to all Players and proceeding according to other Rules governing the orderly transfer of power of a Speaker. The Speaker is replaced by a temporary Speaker according to the Rules of Succession. The Game is not over in this case, and Scores are not reset to 0. The Game continues until a Player Wins, at which time a new Game is begin and the Winner becomes the real Speaker. Restrictions: The ex-Speaker loses 10 Points immediately, and if the resulting Score is greater than the average Score of all Players, then eir score is set to the average Score. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 684 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 684 history: ... [orphaned text: At the end of each Game the Point Reserve is reset to X. Let X be equal to the total number of Points that exists in the Point Reserve at the end of the Game divided by the number of Active Players that were Active at the end of the Game. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 688 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 688 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 954 (Ian), 25 July 1994 [orphaned text: The Speaker is not allowed to make use of the Vototron. This Rule takes precedence over Rule 574. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 689,790 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 689 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 790, ca. Dec. 20 1993 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: 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. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996 text: An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily. As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. history: Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2454, 6 February 1996 text: An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily. As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. history: Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, 28 February 1996 text: An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily. As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2564, 6 April 1996 text: An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily. As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. However, if the Office in question is that of the Registrar, the Speaker shall instead initiate the Election. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2639, 12 July 1996 text: An Office is "held in the normal fashion" if and only if the Officer holding that Office was elected to that Office and has neither resigned from it nor been retired or removed from it. An Office which is not held in the normal fashion is said to be held temporarily. As soon as possible after it occurs that there is an undelegated Office which is being held temporarily, and for which no Election is already being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election to fill that Office, as described elsewhere. However, if the Office in question is that of the Registrar, the Speaker shall instead initiate the Election. The winner of that Election shall then hold that Office until e resigns or is retired or removed from that Office. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 3742 (Harlequin), 8 May 1998 text: Whenever there is an Office with no current Electee, for which an Election is not currently being conducted, the Registrar shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described elsewhere, unless the Office is that of Registrar; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct the Election. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), 15 November 1999 text: Whenever there is an Office with no current Electee, for which an Election is not currently being conducted, the Payroll Clerk shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described elsewhere, unless the Office is that of Payroll Clerk; in that case, the Speaker shall conduct the Election. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 4053 (harvel), 21 August 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(10) by Proposal 4103 (Murphy), 15 January 2001 text: As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an Electee (or is created without installing an Electee), the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Grand Warden of the Oligarchy, unless the Office in question is that of Grand Warden of the Oligarchy; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 4142 (Murphy), 15 April 2001 text: As soon as possible after an Office ceases to have an Electee (or is created without installing an Electee), the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4650 (Murphy), 22 March 2005 text: As soon as possible after a) an Office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale; the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee. The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Assistant Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Assistant Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4768 (root), 25 May 2005 text: As soon as possible after a) an Office ceases to have an Electee; b) an Office is created without installing an Electee; or c) an Election for an Office without an Electee becomes Stale; the designated conductor of Office Elections shall initiate an Election for that Office, as described by other Rules. This requirement is cancelled if the Office comes to have an Electee. The designated conductor of Office Elections is the Associate Director of Personnel, unless the Office in question is that of Associate Director of Personnel; in that case, the designated conductor is the Speaker. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 text: An election to fill an office must be held whenever: (a) the office ceases to have an electee; (b) the office is created without installing an electee; or (c) an election to fill that office fails, and no election for that office is in progress. As long as an election to fill an office is in progress, no other election to fill that office may be initiated. An election is in progress from the time it is initiated until it is resolved. If a player required to initiate an election fails to do so as soon as possible, then any player may announce that the election has failed. Provided that this assertion is indeed correct, then upon this announcement the election fails. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 790 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 [orphaned text: 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*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 692 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 692 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1360, 13 December 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1477, 8 March 1995 text: A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1560, 17 April 1995 text: A Player may voluntarily transfer Points in eir possession to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the Public Forum (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient has more than than 90% of the Points required to Win, or would pass this limit as a result of the transfer. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. history: ... [orphaned text: A Player may voluntarily transfer Points to any other Player for any purpose, within the following limits: (a) the transfer must be posted to the listserv (b) a Player may only transfer a positive number of Points (c) a Player may not transfer more Points than e currently has (d) a Player may not transfer Points if the recipient would as a result have more than 90% of the Points required to Win. If any agreement among Players includes any transfer of Points between two Players then each such transfer shall be in accordance with the above. But this Rule shall not be construed as having any bearing on the legality or legal enforceability of any terms of said agreement which do not involve such a transfer. All Nomic Entities shall abide by the above limits whenever Points are traded. If a Nomic Entity must trade Points by the current Rules but would end up breaking the above limits, then the Nomic Entity trades the maximum amount possible without breaking any of the above limits. This Rule shall have precedence over all other Rules pertaining to the Trading of Points. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 710 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 710 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 847 (Garth), 3 March 1994 [orphaned text: If a Player has been formally Accused of a Crime and that Player denies that a Crime was committed, or the Accused Player does not respond to the Accusation within 72 hours, or within 72 hours of the time that the Accused Player ceases to be On Hold, should e be On Hold when the Accusation is made, then the Accusing Player may call for Criminal Court. To do so, the Accusing Player shall notify the Clerk of the Courts of the intent to begin Criminal Court and shall send a copy of the Accusation to the Clerk of the Courts. A Judge is then selected exactly as in the case of a call for Judgement, and Players are notified exactly as in the case of a call for Judgement, except that the reasons for the Guilt of the Accused need not be distributed to all Players, only the Accusing Player, the Accused, and the Crime. When a Judge has been finally selected, the Clerk of the Courts shall notify the Accusing and the Accused Player of the identity of the Judge. As soon as the Accused Player, who shall be known as the Defendant, and the Accusing Player, who shall be known as the Prosecuter, have been notified of the identity of the Judge who has accepted the appointment, they shall both send all pertinent information regarding this Crime to the Judge. When each party has sent all information, they shall indicate so by explicitly stating such in their last message to the Judge. The Judge then has one week from the time at which both such messgaes have been recieved to return a Verdict, following all Rules exactly as if returning a Judgement in the case of a call for Judgement. The Judge shall not return a Verdict until at least 72 hours after the identity of the Judge is announced so that other interested Players can also send information to the Judge. A Verdict may be GUILTY, NOT GUILTY, or UNDECIDED. If the Verdict is GUILTY, then the Defendant shall suffer all the penalties relevant to the Class of Crime of which e was found GUILTY. If the Verdict is NOT GUILTY, then there shall be no effect. If the Verdict is UNDECIDED, then it shall be as if there had been no Criminal Court. A Criminal Court may be Appealed exactly as a Call for Judgement may be Appealed, except that all information pertinent to the Court shall be given to all involved in the Appeal, and if the Appeal OVERRULES the Verdict, then the process of a Criminal Court shall occur again automatically. If other Rules designate another Appeals system for a Criminal Court, those Rules shall take precedence over this Rule. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 713 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 713 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be a quantity known as the Poverty Line, which shall be equal to 20% of the average score of all Active Players. If any active Player's score is less than the Poverty Line at the beginning of the Nomic Week, then each such active Player's score shall be increased to the Poverty Line by transferring points from the Point Reserve, provided there are sufficient points therein to cover all such transfers. A Player shall not receive points under this rule if e voluntarily transferred points to another Player during the previous Nomic Week. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 714,766 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 714 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 766 (Waggie), ca. Dec. 8 1993 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1415, 1 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing seriously.] text: A Group is initially formed by a set of Players which has registered with the Registrar to form a Group; other Players may join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier, an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances, and an associated form of Currency, called the Coins, where is the Name of the Group. 1. The Name may not be the Name of another Group. 2. The Membership is a set of Players; these Players are Members of the Group, and all other Players are not. 3. Synchronously with the registration of a Group, two positions are created known as the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor, where is the Name of the Group. These positions are not Offices, and they may only be held by members of the Group. These positions may never be vacant while the Group remains in existence. The Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership of the Group or the Ordinancekeepor of the Group changes. When the Vizier of the Group changes, the new Vizier shall inform the Registrar of the change. The Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and up to date record of the current Ordinances of the Group. 4. The Treasury is a repository for Points and Currencies and has the same capabilities for holding, trading, and spending Points and Currencies as does a Player. 5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the Group. text: A Group is initially formed by a set of Players which has registered with the Registrar to form a Group; other Players may join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier, an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances, and an associated form of Currency, called the Coins, where is the Name of the Group. 1. The Name may not be the Name of another Group. 2. The Membership is a set of Players; these Players are Members of the Group, and all other Players are not. 3. Synchronously with the registration of a Group, two positions are created known as the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor, where is the Name of the Group. These positions are not Offices, and they may only be held by members of the Group. These positions may never be vacant while the Group remains in existence. The Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership of the Group or the Ordinancekeepor of the Group changes. When the Vizier of the Group changes, the new Vizier shall inform the Registrar of the change. The Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and up to date record of the current Ordinances of the Group. 4. The Treasury is a repository for Points and Currencies and has the same capabilities for holding, trading, and spending Points and Currencies as does a Player. 5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the Group. (*Was: 714*) history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group. A Group's Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group's Vizier. A Group has an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group's Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group. Players within the Ordinances' Jurisdiction are known as the Group's Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group. text: Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group. A Group's Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group's Vizier. A Group has an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group's Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group. Players within the Ordinances' Jurisdiction are known as the Group's Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2035, 4 December 1995 text: Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group. A Group's Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group's Vizier. A Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group's Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group. Players within the Ordinances' Jurisdiction are known as the Group's Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2470, 16 February 1996 text: Let there be a Class of Organization known as a Group. A Group's Compact consists only of Statutes, and are known collectively as its Ordinances, an individual Statute of its Compact is known as an Ordinance. Its Administrator is known as the Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group has one Treasury, and its Executor is known as the Group's Vizier. A Group is the Mintor of an associated form of Currency. The generic name of all Group Currencies is "Coins." The specific name of a Group's Currency is Coins, where is the Name of the Group. Players within the Ordinances' Jurisdiction are known as the Group's Membership. Both the Vizier and the Ordinancekeepor of the Group must be Members of the Group. At all times there must be a Vizier and Ordinancekeepor for every Group. Each Group has Mint Authority. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996 text: A "Group" is an Organization of Class Group; this Class is a valid Class of Organization. All Groups are Public Organizations. The Jurisdiction of a Group's Compact is permitted to contain any Player, but no Player is permitted to be part of the Jurisdictions of the Compacts of more than one Group simultaneously. Each Group shall possess exactly one Treasury. A Group must have exactly three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Jurisdiction. Both the Administrator and the Executor of a Group must be part of the Jurisdiction of that Group's Compact. The following definitions pertain to Groups: * Ordinances: a synonym for a Group's Compact. * Ordinancekeepor: a synonym for the Group's Administrator * Vizier: a synonym for the Group's Executor * Membership: the Jurisdiction of the Group's Compact. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2725 (Swann), 23 October 1996 text: There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group's Ordinances. A Group's Administrator is that Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group's Executor is that Group's Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group's SLC is that Group's Membership. A Group's Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3502 (General Chaos), 8 June 1997 text: There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. An SLC associated with a Group is that Group's Ordinances. A Group's Administrator is that Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group's Executor is that Group's Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group's SLC is that Group's Membership. A Group's Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group. Each Group has Mint Authority. history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3606 (General Chaos), 9 December 1997 text: There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group's Administrator is that Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group's Executor is that Group's Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group's SLC is that Group's Membership. A Group's Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group. Each Group has Mint Authority. history: Amended(10) by Proposal "A Separation of Powers" (Steve, Without Objection), 20 April 1999 text: There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group's Administrator is that Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group's Executor is that Group's Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group's SLC is that Group's Membership. A Group's Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group. Each Group has Mint Authority. Each Group is a Voting Entity. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), 31 October 1999 text: There is a class of Organization known collectively as the class of Groups. Each single Organization within this class is a Group. Each Group has associated with it an SLC called its Ordinances. A Group's Administrator is that Group's Ordinancekeepor. A Group's Executor is that Group's Vizier. The set of Players within the Jurisdiction of that Group's SLC is that Group's Membership. A Group's Membership is permitted to contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. A Group must have at least three Foundors, who constitute the Group's initial Membership. Both the Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group. Each Group has Mint Authority. Each Group has a Legislative Status. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), 4 February 2000 text: A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group's Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership. A Group's Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group's Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves. Each Group has Mint Authority and a Legislative Status. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), 21 June 2000 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4032 (t), 24 July 2000 text: A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group's Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership. A Group's Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group's Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves. Each Group has Mint Authority. A Group's Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (a) A Group containing fewer than three Members: zero; (b) A Group containing at least three Members: one plus the number of Voting Entitlements it possesses, with a maximum of three. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4153 (Michael), 13 May 2001 text: A Group is an Organization with an associated SLC called its Ordinances. The Administrator for each Group is that Group's Ordinancekeepor, the Executor is its Vizier, and the set of Players within the Jurisdiction of its SLC is its Membership. A Group's Membership may contain any Player who is not a Member of any other Group. Initially, the Group's Membership must contain at least three Foundors. The Ordinancekeepor and the Vizier of a Group must, at all times, be Members of the Group; if either ceases to be a Member of the Group, it dissolves. Each Group has Mint Authority. A Group's Voting Power on a Democratic Proposal is as follows: (a) A Group containing fewer than three members: zero; (b) A Group containing at least three members: the number of Players divided by the number of Groups with at least three members, rounded down. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 766 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003 [orphaned text: A Group is initially formed by a set of Players which has registered with the Registrar to form a Group; other Players may join later. Each Group has a Name, a Membership, a Vizier, an Ordinancekeepor, a Treasury, an Initial Set of Ordinances, and an associated form of Currency, called the Coins, where is the Name of the Group. 1. The Name may not be the Name of another Group. 2. The Membership is a set of Players; these Players are Members of the Group, and all other Players are not. 3. Synchronously with the registration of a Group, two Offices are created known as the Vizier, and the Ordinancekeepor, where is the Name of the Group. These Offices may never be empty, and the Vizier and Ordinancekeepor must both be a member of Group. The Vizier shall inform the Registrar whenever the Membership or the Ordinancekeepor of the group changes. When the Vizier changes, the new Vizier shall inform the Registrar of the change. The Ordinancekeepor shall keep an accurate and current record of the Ordinances of the Group. 4. The Treasury is a repository for Points and Currencies and has the same capabilities for holding, trading, and spending Points and Currencies as does a Player. 5. The Ordinances are a description of the operation of the Group. 6. The Coins are a form of Currency which is created synchronously with the registration of the Group. The Group may create Coins as it sees fit; these must be placed in the Treasury. The Group may destroy Coins as it sees fit; these must be removed from the Treasury. (*Was: 714*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 715 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 715 history: ... [orphaned text: The Registrar shall keep a record of all currently formed Groups, their Memberships, Viziers, and Ordinancekeepors; as well as a record of all unaffiliated Players; and such other data as are required in order to make the Group Report. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 716 [History is unresolved for this rule. Not attempting to show texts.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 717 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 717 by Proposal 717 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995 text: Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Notary must post a report of all Public Organizations in the Public Forum. This report shall contain: i) The Name and Class of each Public Organization. ii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Public Organization's Compact. iii) The identity of the Administrator of each Public Organization. iv) The identity of the Executor of each Public Organization which has Treasuries. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996 text: Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Notary must post a report of all Organizations in the Public Forum. This report shall contain: i) The Name and class of each Organization. ii) The identities of the Administrator and Executor of each Organization. iii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Organization's SLC. iv) The identity of the Maintainer of each Organization's SLC. Also, as soon as possible after the creation of any Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Forum, the above information for that Organization. history: Amended(3) Cosmetically by Proposal 2839 (Zefram), 11 March 1997 text: The Notary's Report includes: i) The Name and class of each Organization. ii) The identities of the Administrator and Executor of each Organization. iii) The Players within the Jurisdiction of each Organization's SLC. iv) The identity of the Maintainer of each Organization's SLC. Also, as soon as possible after the creation of any Organization, the Notary shall publish, in the Public Forum, the above information for that Organization. history: ... [orphaned text: Not less than once each Nomic Week, the Registrar must post the Group Report in the Public Forum. This report shall contain: 1. A list of unaffiliated Players; 2. A list of currently formed Groups, and for each Group the following information: (a) the Name of the Group; (b) the Vizier of the Group; (c) the Ordinancekeepor of the Group; and (d) the Membership of the Group. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 718 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 718 by Proposal 718 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995 text: A Player may resign from a Group of which e is a Member, at any time, by sending such a message to the Notary and the Group's Vizier. This rule takes precedence over all other Rules concerning Groups. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996 text: A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group's Compact when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message. This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group's Compact by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996 text: A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group's Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message. This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group's Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group. history: Infected and Amended(4) Substantially by Rule 1454, 28 February 1997 text: A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group's Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message. This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group's Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(5) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: A Player who is a Member of a Group shall be removed from the Jurisdiction of that Group's Ordinances when that Player sends a message to the Notary and the Vizier of that Group, indicating that e is resigning from that Group. The Ordinances of a Group are not permitted to prohibit a Player from sending such a message. This Rule does not in any way prevent a Player from being removed from the Jurisdiction of a Group's Ordinances by other means specified by the Rules or the Ordinances of that Group. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 718 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003 [orphaned text: A player may resign from a Group of which e is a Member, at any time, by sending such a message to the Registrar and the Vizier of that Group. This rule takes precedence over all other rules concerning Groups. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 719 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 719 by Proposal 719 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995 text: 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(2) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996 text: A Player shall be added to the Membership of a Group only when: a) the Player to be added is not already a Member of another Group; b) the Player to be added has sent the Vizier of the Group in question a message requesting to be added to the Membership of that Group; and c) the addition of that Player to that Group's Membership is otherwise permitted by that Group's Ordinances and the Rules. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 719 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003 [orphaned text: A Player not affiliated with any Group may become a Member of a Group at any time after Registration of the Group only as specified in that Group's Ordinances, so long as they do not conflict with the rules. However, other rules may establish other restrictions on Group Membership, and no Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir sending such a request to the Vizier of that Group. A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 720,763 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 720 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 763 history: ... [orphaned text: If at any time a Group X has fewer than three members, or Group X does not have a Vizier, then Group X shall cease to exist. Immediately before Group X ceases to exist, a number of Points equal to two times the number of X Coins in existence at that moment shall be removed from the X Treasury, and then all of the X Coins shall be converted to Points, at the rate of two Points per Coin. (*Was: 720*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 721 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 721 by Proposal 721 (Chuck), ca. Nov. 4 1993 [Missing text for this revision.] history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1641, 1 August 1995 text: 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. 5. How the Members of the Group shall determine the manner in which the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the Ordinances do not so specify, the Group is prohibited from casting Group votes. The Group is also prohibited from casting any votes on a Proposal if it was not in existence at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or if it has less than three Members. The Group's Vizier is responsible for informing the Assessor of how the Group votes on a Proposal. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1760, 21 October 1995 text: No Member of any Group is bound to observe any Ordinance or set of Ordinances that conflict with the Rules. The Ordinances of a Group may specify the following: i) 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 Notary, if e is still a Member of that Group. ii) 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. iii) How the Members of the Group shall determine the manner in which the Group shall cast its Group votes. If the Ordinances do not so specify, the Group is prohibited from casting Group votes. The Group is also prohibited from casting any votes on a Proposal if it was not in existence at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal, or if it has less than three Members. The Group's Vizier is responsible for informing the Assessor of how the Group votes on a Proposal. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2563, 6 April 1996 text: Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Vizier of a Group shall be that Founder of the Group whose Application was received first by the Notary. If this person is no longer a Member of the Group, then the Group shall be dissolved. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so. A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal. A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes. The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's Votes to the Assessor. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2633, 4 July 1996 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify; or if the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the Application to Create that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a Application to Create a Group, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). In any of these cases, if this Player is no longer a Member of the Group or is no longer a Player, the Group shall be dissolved. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so. A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal. A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes. The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's Votes to the Assessor. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2725, 23 October 1996 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). A Group's Vizier must be a Member of that Group. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so. A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal. A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes. The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's Votes to the Assessor. history: Infected and Amended(6) Substantially by Rule 1454, 8 June 1997 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). A Group's Vizier must be a Member of that Group. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so. A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal. A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes. The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's Votes to the Assessor. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Rule 721, 22 June 1997 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group (if the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Player who was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created). A Group's Vizier must be a Member of that Group. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. If a given Group is a Voting Entity, then it shall be entitled to cast Vote(s) only as specified by its Ordinances. If the Ordinances of the Group do not specify how the Group shall cast its Vote(s), it may not do so. A Group is not entitled to cast Votes on a Proposal if it did not exist at the beginning of the Voting Period of that Proposal. A Group with fewer than three Members is not entitled to cast Votes. The Vizier of a Group is responsible to communicate the Group's Votes to the Assessor. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3608 (General Chaos), 9 December 1997 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by the Execution of a ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created. If the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the Group shall be dissolved. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: The Vizier of a Group shall be whoever the Ordinances of that Group specify. If the Ordinances are silent, the Vizier shall be the Player who authored the ACO that created that Group, if e is still a Member of that Group. If the Group was not created by the Execution of an ACO, the Vizier shall be whoever was the Vizier of that Group when it was first created. If the Vizier thus specified is not a Member of the Group, the Group shall be dissolved. Unless the Ordinances of a Group specify otherwise, the Ordinancekeepor of a Group shall be its Vizier. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 721 by Proposal 4453 (Sherlock), 22 February 2003 [orphaned text: 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. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 724 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 724 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1403, 29 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1422, 7 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1449, 1 March 1995 text: The Winner is the first Active Voter to achieve sufficiently many Points. The minimum number of Points required for Player X to Win is 10*N*(1+G/6), where N is the number of Players currently registered in the Game, and G is the number of Games which Player X has already won. The value (1+G/6) is known as the "Handicap Factor". If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, then all such Voters Win. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 2471, 16 February 1996 text: A Player Wins the Game if e is an Active Voter, and e possesses a number of Points greater than or equal to the number of currently registered Players times eir handicap factor times ten. A Player's handicap factor is equal to one, plus the number of Games that Player has previously won divided by six. history: ... [orphaned text: The Winner is the first Voter to achieve sufficiently many Points. The minimum number of Points required for Player X to win is 10*N*(1+G/6), where N is the number of Players currently registered in the Game, and G is the number of Games which Player X has already won. If more than one Voter achieves this condition simultaneously, then all such Voters win. When a Game ends in this manner: - If there is only one Winner, that Voter becomes the new Speaker and the old Speaker becomes a Voter. - If there is more than one Winner, the Voter with the highest Point total becomes the new Speaker. If more than one Voter is tied for the highest score, the old Speaker randomly selects one of them to become the new Speaker. The old Speaker becomes a voter. - All Player's scores are reset to 0. - A new Game is begun. All Rules and Proposals retain the status they had at the end of the old Game. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 725,931 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 725 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 931 (Stella?), 27 June 1994 text: Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock, where X is the name of the Player. The Dividend on Stock X shall be 2 Points or 5% of the Points of Player X on Friday Noon GMT (whatever is more). The Dividend shall be transfered on Friday Noon GMT to the Player (or Players) who holds Stock X. At the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the Banker.) After one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score. If a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank. If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to Player X. The Banker shall keep track of the Stocks held by each Player. history: Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994 text: Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock, where X is the name of the Player. The Dividend on Stock X shall be 2 Points or 5% of the Points of Player X on Friday Noon GMT (whatever is more). The Dividend shall be transfered on Friday Noon GMT to the Player (or Players) who holds Stock X. At the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the Banker.) After one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score. If a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank. If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to Player X. The Banker shall keep track of the Stocks held by each Player. (*Was: 725*) history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be for each Player one Currency called X Stock, where X is the name of the Player. On Friday Noon GMT 5% of the Points of Player X (with a minimum of two Points) shall be transfered to the Player (or Players) who holds Stock X. At the passing of this Proposal the Bank has possession of all Stocks. During the following week the Banker shall collect the bids in Marks. Those bids have to be made by the Players (either alone or acting together on the same Stock) in a message to the server. No bid shall be made, which can not be covered by the Marks in he bidders Bank account (to be verified by the Banker.) After one week each of the Stocks shall be transfered from the Bank to the highest bidder. If two or more bids for Stock X are exactly equal, the Stock shall go to player X (if one of the highest bidders), or to the Player with the lowest score. If a given Stock X is bought by Player X, the Marks of the bid shall be transfered from Player X to the Bank. If a given Stock X is bought by another Player (or Players) then Player X, the Marks of the bid shall go from this Player(s) to Player X. The Banker shall keep track of the Stocks held by each Player. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 726 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 726 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1601, 19 June 1995 text: When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank a number of Points equal to the average of the number of Points held by all Active Players, excluding those Players with negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points. history: Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 14 August 1995 text: When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank a number of Points equal to the average of the number of Points held by all Active Players, excluding those Players with negative Point holdings, at the moment e entered the Game. If there are no Active Players who possess a non-negative number of Points, the new Player shall instead receive zero Points. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1679, 22 August 1995 text: When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank a number of Points equal to the median of the number of Points held by all Active Players. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: When a new Player enters the Game, e shall receive from the Bank a number of Points equal to the median of the number of Points held by all Active Players. The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers which occur under this Rule. history: ... [orphaned text: All Players begin with 0 Points, except that new Voters who enter part-way through a Game in progress shall be given the average of the scores of all active Players scores, not including those scores, which happen to be negative. Points may not be gained, lost, or traded except as explicitly stated in the Rules. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 728 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 728 history: ... [orphaned text: When Player X leaves the game, Stock X shall be destroyed. If Stock X was held at that time by another Player, this Player shall be compensated with half the price in Marks that this Player paid for the Stock X. These Marks shall come from the account of Player X, *before* those shall be destroyed, as required by other Rules. If there are not enough Marks available, the deficit shall be paid by the Bank. This Rule applies to the Stock of Players that have left the game before adoption of this Proposal. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 730 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 730 history: ... [orphaned text: When a Player leaves the game, any Stock they own shall be sold for Marks in an Auction, with the Banker as Auctioneer. The proceedings shall go to the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 731 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 731 history: ... [orphaned text: When there exists no Stock for Player X, one shall be created and sold for Marks in an Auction, with the Banker as Auctioneer. The proceedings shall go to Player X, unless they obtain their own Stock, in which case the proceedings shall go to the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 732,823 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 732 history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 823 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994 text: At the end of each game let each Player that did not win have eir points be converted to Marks in a ratio of 50 points to 1 Mark. The winner's points shall be taken away and e shall not receive any Mark's compensation for eis points. Marks for these conversions shall be awarded from the bank as directed by the Ruleset history: Amended by Rule 750, 1 March 1994 text: At the end of each game let each Player that did not win have eir points be converted to Marks in a ratio of 50 points to 1 Mark. The winner's points shall be taken away and e shall not receive any Mark's compensation for eis points. Marks for these conversions shall be awarded from the bank as directed by the Ruleset (*Was: 732*) history: ... [orphaned text: When a Game ends the Points of all Players with a positive score shall be converted into Marks in a ratio of 25 Points for one Mark. The number of Marks necessary for this conversion shall be created. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 736 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 736 history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be the Patent Title known as "Marxist", which is awarded to the Player with the most Marks, or if tied, to the Players with the most Marks. Only the current richest Player or Players may hold this title. The determination and announcement of assignment and revoking of the Title is made by the Banker, who must use the most accurate means of determining this available to eim, and must make the announcement as soon as possible after becoming aware of a change in holder of the Title. However: To respect some Players' wish for privacy, and in view of the secret nature of Marks accounts, a prospective Marxist must first be asked if e wants the Title. If not, then instead of announcing, "Player x is granted the Patent Title of 'Marxist', e announces, "Patent Title of 'Marxist' is granted to an anonymous Player". ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 747 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 747 history: ... [orphaned text: An Entity is only a Conserved Quantity if a Rule explicitly states such. A Conserved Quantity may only be Created or Destroyed as explicitly stated by the Rules. If a Conserved Quantity is given to an Entity, and no Rule states where that Conserved Quantity is to be taken from, then the transfer shall not take place. If a Conserved Quantity is taken from an Entity, and no Rule states where that Conserved Quantity is to be transfered to, then the Conserved Quantity shall be transfered to the Bank. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 748 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 748 by Proposal 748, 1 December 1993 text: Whenever the length of a Proposal is determined, any blank lines within that Proposal shall not be counted towards the number of lines in that Proposal. In addition, any lines which are required by legislation, including a Title or a Declaration, shall likewise not be counted towards the number of lines in that Proposal. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 749 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 749 history: ... [orphaned text: Every time a Voter proposes a Proposal, that Voter shall gain one Entry into a weekly Lottery. Each week, a random Entry shall be selected by the designated Sweepstakes Officer, and the Voter who owns that Entry shall receive 1 Point per Entry by any other Player into the Lottery. For purposes of this Rule, a week shall begin on Monday at 12:00 am and shall last seven days, until Sunday at 11:59 pm, in the time zone in which the designated Sweepstakes Officer resides. The weekly drawing shall take place as soon as possible after the end of the week. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 750,1069 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 750 by Proposal 750 (Waggie), 1 December 1993 text: Whenever a Proposal is Passed which Amends a Rule, that Rule shall also be Amended as follows. 1. If the last line of text of the Rule begins with '(*' and ends with '*)' then the characters '/@' shall be inserted immediately before the final '*)'. 2. If the last line of text of the Rule does not begin with '(*' and end with '*)' then the following line of text shall be appended to the text of the Rule: '(*Was: @*)'. 3. After clauses 1. and 2. above have been applied, the '@' which appears in the last line of text of the Rule shall be replaced with the Number of the Rule which was Amended by the Amending Proposal. history: Amended by Proposal 1069 (Steve), 4 October 1994 text: Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is appended to a Rule's Number, separated by a forward slash, and which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is the value of a Rule's Amendment Index when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise. If the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update the Amendment Index. In addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed. Amendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a Rule and the Rule's current text. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 October 1994 text: Let there be a number known as the Amendment Index, which is appended to a Rule's Number, separated by a forward slash, and which is equal to the number of times a Rule with that Number has been Amended. The default Amendment Index is zero; this is the value of a Rule's Amendment Index when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Index of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise. If the Amendment Index of a Rule is zero, the Amendment Index need not be displayed with the text of the Rule. Otherwise, the Amendment Index shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, along with the Number and text of the Rule. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update the Amendment Index. In addition, when a Rule is Amended, the Rulekeepor shall append to the text of the Rule an annotation giving the number of the Amendment, the Number of the Proposal which Amended the Rule, and the date on which this Proposal passed. Amendment Indices may be used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a Rule and the Rule's current text. (*Was: 750*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1502, 24 March 1995 text: A Rule's Amendment Number is equal to the number of times a Rule having that Rule Number has been amended. The default Amendment Number is zero; this is the value of a Rule's Amendment Number when the Rule is Created, and it is the value of the Amendment Number of every Rule unless it is specified by the Rules to be otherwise. A Rule's Amendment Number shall be displayed in Official copies of the Ruleset, appended to the Rule Number, and separated by a forward slash. Responsibility is given to the Rulekeepor to accurately update Amendment Numbers. Amendment Numbers may be used for Official purposes and in Official documents to distinguish between old versions of a Rule and the Rule's current text. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1069 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 758 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 758 history: ... [orphaned text: When, for any reason, the owner of a Nomic entity is to be determined by an Auction, this Auction shall be conducted by an Auctioneer, who shall be the Banker, the Banker's chosen willing delegate, or any other player as specified in other rules. Once the identity of the Auctioneer is determined, the Auction begins with the Auctioneer making an announcement to the game forum stating what Nomic entity is up for Auction, and that e is accepting bids. Players who wish to participate in the Auction then must indicate their interest by sending a bid to the Auctioneer. The list of players who have indicated an interest is not secret, and if it is not included as part of the Auctioneer's Announcements the Auctioneer must share it on demand. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 762 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 762 history: ... [orphaned text: If, for any reason, Player X ceases to be a Member of Group Y, then Player X shall recieve a share of the contents of the Y Treasury as specified in the Y Ordinances. If the Y Ordinances are silent on this issue, or if Group Y has ceased to exist, then 1/N times the contents of the Y Treasury, rounded downwards, shall be transferred to Player X, where N is the number of Members of Group Y immediately before Player X ceased to be a Member of Group Y. This transfer is not taxable, and may incude a negative number of Points. This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules which determine which Point and Currency transfers are legal and/or taxable. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 764 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 764 history: ... [orphaned text: Any Player or Group X may perform an Act of Mischief directed at any Player or Group Y. The permissible forms of Mischief are defined in other Rules; such definitions must include a positive Price in Coins, or the form of Mischief is not permissible. This Rule explicitly takes precedence over all other Rules which purport to determine which forms of Mischief are permissible. To cause an Act of Mischief, X sends to the Public Forum a message containing: - the Name of the object, Y; - the effect of the Act of Mischief; - the Number of the Rule which permits the form of Mischief; - indication of which Coins in X's account will be used as payment for the Act of Mischief. Coins of Group Y, or the Group to which Player Y belongs, may not be used as payment. The effect of the Act of Mischief is applied immediately upon publication of the above message in the Forum. An additional effect of this Act of Mischief is that - for each Coin of Group Z spent as payment above, two Points are removed from the Z Treasury; - the Coins used as payment above are removed from X's account and destroyed. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 779 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 779 history: ... [orphaned text: When a Player submits a Proposal, e may pay one Mark to the Bank (if e has at least one Mark) and impose Sanity on that Proposal. E must inform both the Banker and the Speaker when doing so. A Proposal which has Sanity imposed upon it is known as a Sane Proposal. The Speaker shall, when e distributes a Sane Proposal, inform the Players that it is a Sane Proposal. No non-Voter Nomic entity may Vote on a Sane Proposal. Each Voter shall have exactly one Vote on a Sane Proposal, and each Voter's Vote shall be counted exactly once on a Sane Proposal. This rule takes precedence over any rule allowing a non-Voter Nomic entity to Vote; over any rule which gives any Voter more or less than one Vote on a proposal; and over any rule which would cause any Voter's Vote to be counted more or less than once. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 781,908 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 781 by Proposal 781, ca. Dec. 20 1993 text: If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum. Within 48 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points. history: Amended by Proposal 908 (Lance), 4 May 1994 text: If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum within 72 hours of the posting of the Injunction to the Public Forum. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10 points. Within 72 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994 text: If a Player (herein called the Squealer) makes a Call For Judgement alleging that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Judge must issue an Injunction that the Ninny submit a Formal Apology. This Injunction may also include a list of up to ten Prescribed Words. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement, and posted in the Public Forum within 72 hours of the posting of the Injunction to the Public Forum. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall lose 10 points. Within 72 hours of the posting of this Formal Apology, the Squealer must either submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Apology be accepted, or submit a Proposal that the Ninny's Aplology be rejected, but not both. No other Player may submit such a Proposal, and the Squealer may submit only one. If a Proposal to accept the Apology fails, or if a Proposal to reject the Apology passes, then the Ninny loses 5 Points. (*Was: 781*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1362, 13 December 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1382, 17 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1500, 24 March 1995 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, con-taining all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) ex-plaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1734, 15 October 1995 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2432, 30 January 1996 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. history: Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, 1 April 1996 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Tabulator any Blots gained through this rule. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 2789 (favor), 25 January 1997 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(8) Substantially by Proposal 3452 (Steve), 7 April 1997 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule. history: Infected and Amended(9) Substantially by Rule 1454, 11 November 1997 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule. This Rule, apart from this paragraph, shall be completely without effect. Two weeks after this paragraph is inserted into this Rule, this paragraph shall be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended(10) Substantially by Rule 908, 25 November 1997 text: If a Call for Judgement alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, or to have committed one or more Crimes, and this CFJ is Judged TRUE, then the Ninny must submit to the Public Forum a Formal Apology within 72 hours of the publication of Judgement, unless that Judgement is successfully appealed within 72 hours. By a Formal Apology is meant a letter of at least 200 words, containing all of the Prescribed Words (if any were prescribed) explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A Judge deciding TRUE in such a CFJ may issue an Injunction including a list of up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, and ordering that the Ninny's Formal Apology must include the Prescribed Words. If the Ninny fails to meet these criteria e shall gain 3 Blots. The Player who called the initial CFJ has the duty to report to the Herald any Blots gained through this rule. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998 text: Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the Judge's discretion. A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny in the Public Forum, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 text: Upon a judicial finding that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules, the Judge so finding shall Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. However, when the action (or failure to act) is subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, the Order is optional and may be issued at the Judge's discretion. A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 text: If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement. A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: If a Call for Judgement (CFJ) the Statement of which alleges that a Player (herein called the Ninny) has acted or has failed to act in such a way as to be in violation of one or more Rules is judged TRUE, then the Judge so finding may Order that Player to submit, within 72 hours, a Formal Apology. If the Ninny is Ready and the act or failure to act is not subject to penalties by virtue of being defined to be a Crime or an Infraction, then the Judge must issue such an Order as soon as possible after the Clerk of the Courts publishes the judgement. A Formal Apology shall consist of a letter of at least 200 words, to be published by the Ninny, explaining the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. The Judge issuing such an Order may, at eir discretion, include in eir Order a list of up to ten Prescribed Words (to be chosen by the Judge) which must be included in the Formal Apology. If the Judge elects to include Prescribed Words, all of the Words required must appear within the Formal Apology. The failure to abide by an Order to Submit a Formal Apology is the Class 3 Infraction of Failure to Apologize, to be reported by the Judge who issued the original Order. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002 text: If a Player (hereafter the Ninny) is convicted of a Crime, then instead of executing Sentencing Orders, the Judge may (Without Objection) Order the Ninny to publish a Formal Apology. Such an Order is known as an Order to Apologize. A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology. Failure to obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours is the Class 3 Infraction of Shamelessness, to be reported by the Judge who issued the Order. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: A sentencing order may require a defendant (hereafter the Ninny) to publish a Formal Apology. A Formal Apology must be at least 200 words, and must explain the Ninny's error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. Furthermore, the Order to Apologize may include up to ten Prescribed Words of the Judge's choice, all of which must appear in the Formal Apology. A defendant must obey an Order to Apologize within 72 hours of its execution. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 908 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 789 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 789 by Proposal 789 (Chuck), ca. Dec. 20 1993 text: When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is amended, repealed, or transmuted; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1396, 29 January 1995 text: When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: When a player makes a CFJ alleging that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, e shall also submit a list of Rules relevant to that CFJ, which must include the Rule in question. If the statement is Judged TRUE, the Judge may include with the Judgement an Injuction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement in the CFJ and the list of relevant Rules. The annotation shall remain only until one of the Rules in the list of relevant Rules is changed in any way; or until a CFJ determines that the injunction no longer applies, as described below. While it remains, it shall guide the application of that Rule. If a Player believes that the circumstances which led to the Judgement no longer prevail and the annotation is therefore no longer applicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation shall be stricken from the rule set. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 2684, 3 October 1996 text: A CFJ alleging a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way must be accompanied by a list of relevant Rules, assembled by the Caller, which includes the Rule being interpreted. If the Judge finds this CFJ's Statement TRUE, e is permitted to issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with that Statement and the list of relevant Rules. This annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. The annotation is removed once any change occurs in a Rule from the list of relevant Rules. If a Player believes that the circumstances leading to the Judgement no longer prevail, rendering the annotation inapplicable, e may submit a CFJ to that effect. If it is Judged TRUE, the annotation is removed. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), 19 March 1998 text: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed, or when required to do so by a valid Order. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule. If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 3768 (Chuck), 22 July 1998 text: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule. If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question with the Statement of that CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule. If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 4917 (Zefram), 2 April 2007 text: The Judge of any CFJ, the Statement of which alleges that a Rule should be interpreted in a certain way, which is judged TRUE or FALSE, may, at eir discretion, issue an Order requiring the Rulekeepor to annotate the Rule in question accordingly. If the CFJ was judged TRUE then the annotation shall be the Statement of the CFJ, and if the CFJ was judged FALSE then the annotation shall be the contrary of the Statement of the CFJ. Such an annotation, while it exists, shall guide application of that Rule. The Rulekeepor may remove such an annotation only if that Rule is repealed; if required to do so by a valid Order; or if the original Order to annotate is amended, stayed, or vacated. The Rulekeepor may vacate an Order to annotate a Rule Without Objection. Annotations to a Rule may not be modified in any way except as specified in this Rule. If a Player believes that an annotation is no longer pertinent, e may file, in the original CFJ from which the Order of Annotation arises, a Motion to Vacate the Order of Annotation. If such a Motion is granted, the Judge granting it shall Order the original Order Vacated and shall Order the Rulekeepor to remove the annotation in question. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 789 by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 792 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 792 history: ... history: Repealed as Mutable Rule by Proposal 935 (Chuck), 14 July 1994 [orphaned text: The Speaker shall notify all Players whenever the number of Proposals up for Vote is at the maximum and e has received at least PL/2 additional submitted Proposals. However, e may not do this until at least 24 hours after the Proposal queue was last closed. As soon as this notification appears on the Public Forum, Players are prohibited from submitting any more Proposals, and the Speaker shall refuse to accept any which are inadvertently submitted. When the number of Proposals up for Vote has dropped to PL/2 or below, the Speaker shall announce that Proposals are once again being accepted. After this appears on the Public Forum, Players may again submit Proposals. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 794 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 794 history: ... [orphaned text: The Electioneer shall receive one point for every office that e fills. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 803 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 803 history: ... [orphaned text: All Marks transfers between Game Entities must be in multiples of 0.01 Marks. Furthermore, whenever a quantity of Marks is changed, that quantity is immediately adjusted by rounding to the nearest .01 Mark. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would permit a different granularity of Marks. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 804 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 804 history: ... [orphaned text: At the end of a Game, all Stocks will be returned to the Bank to be Auctioned upon the start of a new Game. Each Player that owned Stock (as of the end of the old Game) will be compensated to the amount of one half of the Marks paid by that Player for eis Stocks. The Marks for a given Stock shall be drawn from the account of the Player to which the Stock corresponds. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules governing ownership of Stocks. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 805,907,1023 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 805 by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined time requirement. However, email correspondence of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these actions. history: Amended by Proposal 907 (Nicol), 4 May 1994 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these actions. history: Amended by Rule 750, 4 May 1994 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform this action before performing any other actions which have a less strictly defined time requirement. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which stipulate a less stringent ordering requirement for the performance of these actions. (*Was: 805*) history: Amended by Proposal 1023, 5 September 1994 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805*) history: Amended by Rule 750, 5 September 1994 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class C Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, 1 February 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, 14 February 1995 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall result at a minimum in the incursion of a 10 point penalty; other Rules may impose further penalties. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, 22 August 1995 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform. Failure to observe these time requirements shall be a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, 6 October 1995 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. (*Was: 805/907*) history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, 11 December 1995 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no later than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office subsequently requires em to perform; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no later than any other action e is subsequently required to perform which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, 16 February 1996 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, 12 April 1996 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. Failure to observe these time requirements is a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, 26 May 1996 history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, 4 July 1996 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Crime of Tardiness, a Class D Crime. However, activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), 19 December 1996 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: (i) if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, (ii) e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), 21 January 1999 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Infraction of Tardiness, the penalty for which shall be the same as that for a Class D Crime. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times, and if so, this Rule defers to them. This Rule defers to Rules which describe the responsibilities of Players who are On Hold, and to any Rules which impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), 27 August 1999 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), 8 December 1999 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform a certain action "as soon as possible", then: if the action is one that a Player is required to perform in the course of carrying out Official duties, then the Player is required to perform the action within a week, and no earlier than any other action which the performance of the duties of that Office already requires em to perform as soon as possible; otherwise, e is required to perform that action within a week, and no earlier than any other action e is already required to perform as soon as possible which is not an action performed in the course of carrying out Official duties. A Player who fails to observe these requirements commits the Class 2 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. Activity of a purely discussionary nature is excluded from the ordering requirement, and may be conducted at any time. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a Penalty. It takes precedence over other Rules which define a later latest time for the performance of these actions. Other Rules may impose earlier latest times. Other Rules may impose different requirements on the timing of Official Duties and on the responsibilities of On Hold Players. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), 8 May 2000 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e is required to perform the action within a week. A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty. Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to Inactive Players without conflicting with this Rule. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 text: Whenever a Player is required to perform an action "as soon as possible", then e is required to perform the action within a week. A Player who fails to observe this requirement commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness. All Players are authorized to detect and report the commission of the Infraction of Tardiness. This Rule does not deprive actions which do not conform to its requirements of whatever effects they would otherwise have. Rather, this Rule defines the latest time at which actions to be performed "as soon as possible" may be performed without incurring a penalty. Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule. history: Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002 text: A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within a week. If a Player fails to observe such a requirement, and no other Rule defines a penalty for the failure, then the Player commits the Class 1 Infraction of Tardiness, which may be reported by any Player. This Rule does not prevent late actions from taking effect, but merely penalizes the Player for being late. Other Rules may grant extensions of the penalty-free period to non-active Players without conflicting with this Rule. history: Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The following terms are defined: - Agoran days begin at midnight GMT. Agoran weeks begin at midnight GMT on Monday. Agoran months begin at midnight GMT on the first day of each Gregorian month. Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. - A requirement to perform an action "as soon as possible" is a requirement to perform the action within seven days. - The term "number" shall be interpreted as "real number". - The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. history: Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The term "number" shall mean "real number". (b) The phrase "as soon as possible" shall mean "within seven days". (c) The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. (d) The term "paragraph" shall mean a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Units are considered in a tree hierarchy, interpreting the original body of text as a depth-first search. The root is empty, the unbulleted units are its children, and the bulleted units following an unbulleted unit are its descendants (with nested bullets corresponding to nested levels of the tree). (4) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (e) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The term "number" shall mean "real number". (b) The phrase "as soon as possible" shall mean "within seven days". (c) The term "random" shall mean a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. (d) The term "paragraph" shall mean a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is nested inside. (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first. (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the order of the units in the document. (6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants. (8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from the root, using the specified series of labels. (e) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The term "number" means "real number". (b) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days". (c) The term "random" means a choice drawn with a process whose probability distribution among the possible outcomes is reasonably close to that required by the Rules, using a uniform distribution if not otherwise specified. (d) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is nested inside. (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first. (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the order of the units in the document. (6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants. (8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from the root, using the specified series of labels. (e) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The term "number" means "real number". (b) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days". (c) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is nested inside. (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first. (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the order of the units in the document. (6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants. (8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from the root, using the specified series of labels. (d) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The phrase "as soon as possible" means "within seven days". (b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is nested inside. (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first. (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the order of the units in the document. (6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants. (8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from the root, using the specified series of labels. (c) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008 text: The following terms are defined: (a) The phrases "in a timely fashion" and "as soon as possible" mean "within seven days". (b) The term "paragraph" means a subset of text determined as follows: (1) Each bulleted or enumerated (hereafter simply "bulleted") section is a unit of text. (2) Any remaining text is divided into units at blank lines. (3) Each unit of a document has a level as follows. All unbulleted units have level 1. Each bulleted unit has level n+2, where n is the number of bulleted units it is nested inside. (4) A barrier between two units is a unit appearing between those units which has level no greater than that of the unit appearing first. (5) The units of a document form an ordered tree, with the hierarchy determined as follows. The root is an empty unit with level zero, which nominally appears at the beginning of the document. One unit is a descendant of another unit if it appears after the latter, has strictly greater level, and is not separated from the latter by a barrier. The tree's ordering follows the order of the units in the document. (6) A "paragraph" identified by partial quotation is determined by the minimum sub-tree containing the entirety of that quotation. (7) A "paragraph" identified by an ordinal n is determined by the nth unbulleted unit and its descendants. (8) A "paragraph" identified by enumerated section labels is determined by the sub-tree arrived at by traversal from the root, using the specified series of labels. (c) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 806 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 806 history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1510, 24 March 1995 text: While an Office is vacant, and until it is filled as provided in other rules, the Speaker shall fulfill the duties of that Office. The Speaker may delegate those duties to a willing Player if e desires. The Player fulfilling the duties of that Office is compensated in the same manner as if e actually held that Office. This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules for specific Offices. history: ... [orphaned text: While an Office is vacant, and until it is filled as provided in other rules, the Speaker shall fulfill the duties of that Office. The Speaker may delegate those duties to a willing Player if e desires. This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules for specific Offices. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 807,891,993 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 807 by Proposal 807 text: Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. The permissible forms of Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals), and the Declarations needed to propose them, shall be defined in other legislation. NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form of the Proposal in question. history: Amended by Proposal 891 (Chuck), 13 April 1994 text: Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All proposals, except those which have one of the following declarations: (Creates a Rule) (Amends a Rule) (Repeals a Rule) (Transmutes a Rule) are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However, only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may be proposed. NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form of the Proposal in question. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: Proposals may be made which do not contain Rule Changes. All proposals, except those which have one of the following declarations: (Creates a Rule) (Amends a Rule) (Repeals a Rule) (Transmutes a Rule) are Non-Rule-Change Proposals (or NRC Proposals). However, only those NRC Proposals defined in other Rules may be proposed. NRC Proposals are Voted upon and treated exactly like other Proposals, and shall be Numbered exactly like other Proposals. Upon the Adoption of a NRC Proposal, it shall take effect with results as described in the Rule or Rules that define the form of the Proposal in question. (*Was: 807*) history: Amended by Proposal 993, ca. Aug. 18 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 18 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1330, 22 November 1994 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. Any Proposal for which this is not true is not properly made. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1620, 17 July 1995 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. If this is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if the Proposal is adopted. history: Infected and Amended(3) by Rule 1454, 21 August 1995 text: A Proposal may contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if adopted, causes some change in the Game State other than changing a Rule. No Directive may change any Rule. Only those Directives which are defined by the Rules may be placed in a Proposal. If a Proposal containing Directives is adopted, the Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rule which define the type of each Directive in question. The Adoption Index of a Proposal containing a Directive must be at least as great as that required by the Rule or Rules which define the type of Directive contained in the Proposal. If this is not true, then the Directive shall not take effect, even if the Proposal is adopted. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(???) by Proposal 2399, 20 January 1996 text: A Proposal is permitted to contain one or more Directives. A Directive, if it takes effect, causes some change in the Game State other than Changing a Rule. No Directive shall Change any Rule. A Directive takes effect if and only if: (i) the Proposal containing it is adopted; (ii) the Directive is of a type specifically defined by the Rules; and, (iii) the Adoption Index of the Proposal is at least the minimum Adoption Index necessary for such a Directive to take effect. Unless another Rule states otherwise, the minimum Adoption Index necessary for a Directive to take effect is 1. If a Proposal containing Directives which take effect is adopted, those Directives shall take effect in the order that they appear in the Proposal, and according to the Rule or Rules which define the type of each Directive in question. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 809 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 809 history: ... [orphaned text: There shall be an Office known as the Ambassador. The Ambassador shall have the sole power to conduct Foreign Policy. Foreign Policy is defined as interacting with other Nomic Games in an official capacity, and/or participating on behalf of the Players of this Nomic Game in any Central Nomic Game to be created. The Ambassador shall report to the Public Forum once a Nomic Week on any new Foreign Policy developements of that Nomic Week or the previous one. In any Nomic Week in which Foreign Policy activity occurs, the Ambassador shall receive a salary of two (2) Points. Upon any change in the position of Speaker, the Office of Ambassador shall devolve to the new Speaker. Except for this provision, the Office is chosen as described in other Rules. Proposals may be submitted directing the Ambassador on how to conduct a single piece of Foreign Policy business. Such Proposals are automatically Sane, and if passed are binding upon the Ambassador. If the Ambassador acts contrary to such a Proposal, e may be charged with a Class C Crime. Such Proposals are submitted with the the following legal Declaration: (Foreign Policy Directive) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 815 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 815 history: ... [orphaned text: Let all messages, information, requests, statements, CFJs, answers, etc. that Rules indicate are to be sent or delivered to a specific Office or Officer be sent directly to them. Instances where a Player breaks this rule are to be ignored by said Office or Officer until e receives the message thru means not broadcast to the Public Forum. Further, it shall be considered a Class A crime to send such a message to the Public Forum without first sending it to the proper Office or Officer. It shall be a Class A crime for an Office/r to respond to such a message if it was not sent in the proper manner. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 816 history: ... history: ??? by Proposal 816 history: ... [orphaned text: Let there be a Patent Title known as Originator. This Patent Title shall be given to Chuck. No other person shall hold this Patent Title at any time. ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 818 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 818 by Proposal 818 (Waggie), 14 February 1994 text: Let there be a type of Nomic Entity called a Walrus. Walruses are not a form of Currency; they may be owned by Players or Groups, but they may not be bought, sold, traded, or owed. Walruses may be created or destroyed only in accordance with the Rules. Each Walrus is either Happy or Sad, but not both; a Happy Walrus nay never become a Sad Walrus, and a Sad Walrus may never become a Happy Walrus. It is the duty of the Registrar to keep a record of the number of Happy and/or Sad Walruses owned by each Player or Group. Immediately upon the passage of this Proposal the following shall take place: -for each Voter who Voted FOR both this Proposal and Proposal 819, a Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who contributed at least 2 Points to each of the FOR Caches of the Vototron for both this Proposal and Proposal 819, one Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Member of PROSIRUP, one Happy Walrus will be created belonging to that Player; -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to Waggie; -three Happy Walruses will be created belonging to the Abelian Group; -for each Voter who did not Vote on either this Proposal or Proposal 819 a Sad Walrus will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who Voted AGAINST or ABSTAIN on either this Proposal or Proposal 819 three Sad Walruses will be created belonging to that Voter; -for each Voter who contributed at least 0.1 Point to either of the AGAINST Caches of the Vototron for this Proposal and Proposal 819, one Sad Walrus will be created and given to that Voter for each tenth of a Point spent thusly; -for each Group which Voted on either this Proposal or Proposal 819, one Walrus will be created and given to that Group for each Vote which was cast; the Walrus will be Happy if the Vote was FOR, and the Walrus will be Sad if the Vote was AGAINST or ABSTAIN. At any time after the creation of at least one Walrus, if there cease to be any Walruses in existence then this Rule repeals itself and is removed from the RuleSet. history: Repealed as Mutable Rule 818 by Rule 818, 14 February 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 819 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 819 by Proposal 819 (Waggie), 14 February 1994 text: 10^(-100) seconds after this Proposal is passed into Rule, the following shall take place: -for each Happy Walrus, 5 Marks will be created and given to the Player or Group which owns that Happy Walrus; -for each Sad Walrus, the Player or Group which owns that Sad Walrus will have 50 Points subtracted from their Score or Treasury; -after the above actions have taken place, all Walruses will be destroyed; -after the above actions have taken place, this Rule repeals itself and is removed from the RuleSet. history: Repealed as Mutable Rule 819 by Rule 819, 14 February 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 822,1003 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 822 by Proposal 822 (KoJen), 14 February 1994 text: Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. For the purpose of Rule 106 or its successors, such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. history: Amended by Proposal 1003, ca. Aug. 25 1994 text: Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 text: Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) history: Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, 4 June 1995 text: Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience are disallowed. Such a proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way". This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on. (*Was: 822*) This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1623, 17 July 1995 text: Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience shall not take effect even if adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding. history: Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2665, 12 September 1996 history: Repealed as Power=2 Rule 1003 by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 824 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 824 by Proposal 824 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994 text: Let all Players be able to buy points with eir Marks from the Bank in a ratio of 20 points to 1 Mark. Points will be received from the Point Reserve for such transactions. For such a transaction to be valid the Player must communicate to the Banker that a point purchase is desired. The player must transfer only whole Mark amounts for such a transfer. The Banker will inform the Scorekeepor of transfer and the amount of points the Player is to receive from the Point Reserve. The Scorekeepor shall make the transaction public knowledge. history: Repealed as Mutable Rule 824 by Proposal 959 (Garth), 25 July 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 825 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 825 by Proposal 825 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994 text: Proposals may affect the game when the effect/s is based on votes or activities before the passage of said Proposal only if said Proposal was passed unanimously. For the purpose of this Rule, Proposals that are passed without receiving any AGAINST votes are considered to be unanimous. history: Repealed as Mutable Rule 825 by Proposal 950 (Stella?), 14 July 1994 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 833,1704 history: Enacted as Power=1 Rule 1704 by Proposal 3474 (Swann), 2 May 1997 text: The Player who paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal shall be known as the Payor for that Proposal. If a non-Player Entity paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal the Payor shall be the Executor of that Entity. At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Payor for that Proposal gains a number of P-Notes equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, that Payor loses a number of P-Notes equal the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the number of FOR Votes and AGAINST Votes are equal, the Payor neither gains nor loses P-Notes as a result of this Rule. If the Payor is not the same Player as the Player who made the Proposal, then the Player who made the Proposal shall receive 2 P-Notes if the Proposal passes, and lose 1 P-Note if the Proposal fails. This only happens in the given case, and occurs in addition to any other transfers mandated by this or other Rules. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count. The Assessor shall report the transfers required by this Rule, and shall do so no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: Renumbered from 1704/ to 833/8 by Proposal 3474 (Swann), 2 May 1997 history: Amended(9) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997 text: The entity which paid the Petition fee for a given Proposal shall be known as the Sponsor of that Proposal. At the end of the Voting Period for a Proposal, if a Proposal has received more FOR Votes than AGAINST Votes, the Assessor shall pay out to the Sponsor a number of P-Notes equal to the number of FOR Votes less the number of AGAINST Votes. If, however, a Proposal has received more AGAINST Votes than FOR Votes, the Assessor shall bill the Sponsor for a number of P-Notes equal the number of AGAINST Votes less the number of FOR Votes. If the Sponsor and the Proposer of a Proposal are not the same entity and the Proposal passes, the Assessor shall pay out 2 P-Notes to the Proposer. If the Sponsor and the Proposer of a Proposal are not the same and the Proposal fails, the Assessor shall bill the Proposer 1 P-Note. This is in addition to any other payments required by this or other Rules. For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are not Players do not count. The Assessor shall execute all Payment Orders required by this Rule no later than the time e announces the Voting Results of the Proposal in question. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 3684 (Blob), 12 February 1998 text: As soon as possible after the beginning of the Nomic Week, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to each Player who submitted an Interested Proposal which was adopted during the previous Week. history: Amended(11) by Proposal 3720 (Steve), 16 April 1998 text: As soon as possible after an Interested Proposal submitted by a Player is adopted, the Assessor shall pay out two Voting Tokens to that Player, with the proviso that no more than one such payment shall be made to any Player under the authority of this Rule for adopted Proposals distributed at the same time. history: Amended(12) by Proposal 3761 (Steve), 28 June 1998 text: As soon as possible after the beginning of the Nomic Week, the Assessor shall pay out two Proposal Notes to each Player who submitted an Interested Proposal which was adopted during the previous Week. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 839 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 839 by Proposal 839 (Jeffrey S.), 1 March 1994 text: Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker ad Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post. The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them available upon request to any entity, including those Players on Hold. This Rule shall take precidence over all other Rules regarding commuication with Players on Hold. history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1644, 1 August 1995 text: Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post. The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them available upon request to any entity, including those Players on Hold. This Rule shall take precidence over all other Rules regarding commuication with Players on Hold. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1735, 15 October 1995 text: Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post. The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them available upon request to any entity, including those Players on Hold. This Rule shall take precedence over all other Rules regarding commuication with Players on Hold. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: Let there be an Office of the Assistant. Said Office shall be responsible for collecting those messages which are official in nature from the Speaker and Officers. Messages are to be edited into a single digest post. The Assistant shall maintain previous digests and make them available upon request to any entity, including those Players on Hold. This Rule shall take precedence over all other Rules regarding communication with Players on Hold. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 840 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 840 by Proposal 840 (KoJen), 1 March 1994 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent. A Scamster must pay a one-time fee of 1 Point to the Point Reserve upon receiving the Title. This fee is not optional, and the Patent Title may not be declined. history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1346, 29 November 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1372, 5 January 1995 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent. A Scamster loses 1 Point upon receiving the Title. The Patent Title may not be declined. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1688, 1 September 1995 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent. Upon receiving the title, 0.01 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1716, 12 September 1995 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpretating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent. Upon receiving the title, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This title is awarded by Proposal and once awarded is permanent. Upon receiving the title, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the Scamster to the Bank. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2494, 16 February 1996 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This Title is awarded in the normal manner for Patent Titles, and may never be retracted. At the time the Title is awarded, 1 Mark shall be transferred from the new Scamster to the Bank. This transfer shall be reported by the Registrar, as soon as possible after it occurs. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined. history: Amended(7) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as the "Scamster". This is awarded to a Player who has shown great enthusiasm, persistence, or skill in the perpetrating of Scams. This Title is awarded in the normal manner for Patent Titles, and may never be retracted. The Patent Title of Scamster may not be declined. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 842 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 842 by Proposal 842 (KoJen), 1 March 1994 text: Let there be a Patent Title known as "Most Titled". This Title is to be given to the Player who has the largest number of Patent Titles. The Registrar is charged with keeping track of this and announcing when the Most Titled Player changes. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 843,936,1065 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 843 by Proposal 843 (KoJen), 3 March 1994 text: No Player may send more than PL/2 Proposals to the Speaker during any given Week. Proposals in excess of this number are rejected by the Speaker, as they are not "made in the proper manner". A 2 Point penalty is assessed by the Speaker for every Proposal submitted in excess of this number; responsibility for enforcement is given to the Speaker. history: Amended by Proposal 936 (Chuck), 14 July 1994 text: When a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1 point for each Proposal proposed by em which either is currently up for Vote, or has been sent to the Speaker but not yet distributed. The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed. For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time. If at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker: --the "1 point" in the first paragraph shall be amended to "0.1 Marks" --the "Scorekeepor" in the second paragraph shall be amended to "Banker" --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule. history: Amended by Rule 750, 14 July 1994 text: When a player submits a Proposal to the Speaker, e shall lose 1 point for each Proposal proposed by em which either is currently up for Vote, or has been sent to the Speaker but not yet distributed. The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed. For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time. If at any time after the adoption of this Rule there exists a Nomic entity known as the Point Sucker: --the "1 point" in the first paragraph shall be amended to "0.1 Marks" --the "Scorekeepor" in the second paragraph shall be amended to "Banker" --this paragraph shall then be deleted from this Rule. (*Was: 843*) history: Amended by Proposal 1065, ca. Oct. 11 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Oct. 11 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1270, 24 October 1994 text: When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within the past seven (7) days. The Speaker is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Speaker shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed. For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Speaker separated by infinitesimal increments of time. (*Was: 843/936*) history: Amended(2) by Proposal 1405, 29 January 1995 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1530, 24 March 1995 text: When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose one (1) point for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within the past seven (7) days. The Promotor is responsible for reporting this point change to the Scorekeepor, and the Promotor shall report it no later than the time at which the proposal is distributed. This Rule shall have no effect on Points whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals received by the Speaker but not yet distributed is not more than 12. For the purposes of this Rule, multiple proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor separated by infinitesimal increments of time. (*Was: 843/936*) history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1693, 1 September 1995 text: When a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player within the past seven (7) days. The Promotor is responsible for reporting this transfer to the Banker, and the Promotor shall report it no later than the time at which the Proposal is distributed. No Transfer shall occur as a result of this Rule whenever whenever the number of Proposals currently up for Vote plus the number of Proposals received by the Promotor but not yet distributed is not more than 12. For the purposes of this Rule, multiple Proposals in the same message shall be considered to have been sent to the Promotor separated by infinitesimal increments of time. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 1750, 21 October 1995 text: Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player during the current Nomic Week. The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed. history: Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 1763, 31 October 1995 text: Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of two, previously submitted by that Player during the current Nomic Week. The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2054, 19 December 1995 text: Whenever a Player submits a Proposal, e shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of five, previously submitted by that Player during the current Nomic Week. The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2522, 10 March 1996 text: Whenever a Proposing Entity submits a Proposal, it shall lose 1 Mark for each Proposal, in excess of five, previously submitted by that Proposing Entity during the current Nomic Week. The Promotor shall detect and report this penalty, no later than the time the Proposal is distributed. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 2691, 3 October 1996 text: The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately preceding Week is an Infraction, the penalty for which is one Mil. This Infraction shall be reported by the Promotor. history: Amended(10) by Proposal 2712, 12 October 1996 text: The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately preceding Week is an Infraction, the penalty for which is one Mil. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the Promotor. history: Amended(11) Cosmetically by Proposal 2830 (Murphy), 7 March 1997 text: The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately preceding Week is the Infraction of Excess Proposing, the penalty for which is one Mil. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the Promotor. history: Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: The submission of a Proposal by a Proposing Entity that has submitted more than five Proposals within the immediately preceding Week is the Infraction of Excess Proposing, the penalty for which is 0.5 VT. This Infraction shall be detected and reported by the Promotor. history: Repealed as Power=1 Rule 1065 by Proposal 3724 (Chuck), 16 April 1998 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 849,1007 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 849 by Proposal 849 (Garth), 17 March 1994 text: Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week. This Rule applies to Offices in general, and defers to the Rules for specific Offices. history: ... history: Amended by Proposal 1007, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 [Missing text for this revision.] history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1582, 15 May 1995 text: At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days. The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. history: Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, 28 August 1995 [Have 2 texts for this nominal revision, differing trivially.] text: At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days. The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. text: At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days. The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 1705, 4 September 1995 text: At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days. The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resultng from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 1754, 21 October 1995 text: At the beginning of each Nomic week, each player filling an Office receives the designated weekly salary for each Office which e has filled continuously for the previous five days. The designated weekly salary for any particular Office is 3 Points, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this sentence. The Scorekeepor shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, 6 February 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated salaries for the Office(s) e holds, provided that e has held them for the entire five days preceding without interruption. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfer resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Points. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 2560, 6 April 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated salaries for the Office(s) e holds, provided that e has held them for the entire five days preceding without interruption. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Points. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 2618, 9 June 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Points. history: Amended(8) by Proposal 2662, 12 September 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. Unless otherwise specified, the salary for an Office is 3 Mils. history: Amended(9) by Proposal 2696, 10 October 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 10 Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Null-Amended(10) by Proposal 2710, 12 October 1996 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 10 Marks. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Amended(11) Substantially by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), 17 April 1997 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, each Officer shall receive the designated Salary for each Office e has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, that Officer's Salary for a given Week shall be forfeited if that document has not been distributed in the previous Week. The Registrar shall detect and report all transfers resulting from the payment of fixed weekly Salaries. There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Amended(12) Substantially by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), 15 July 1997 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. If the Rules pertaining to an Office require that Officer to publish a document at least once per Nomic Week, then no payment of Salary shall be made in a given Nomic Week if that document was not distributed in the previous Week. There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Amended(13) by Proposal 3642 (General Chaos), 29 December 1997 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. There shall be a Basic Officer Salary, which is equal to 1 VT. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Amended(14) by Proposal 3747 (Steve), 22 May 1998 text: At the beginning of each Nomic Week, the Registrar shall pay out to each Officer the designated Salary for each Office that Officer has held without interruption for the entire five days preceding. There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Voting Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: Amended(15) by Proposal 3802 (Kolja A.), 15 November 1998 text: At the beginning of each month, the Registrar shall pay out to each Player the designated Salary for each Office that Player has held for a total of at least 12 days in the preceding month. There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Voting Tokens, the level of which is set by the Chancellor, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. Unless otherwise specified, the Salary for an Office shall be equal to the Basic Salary. history: ... history: Amended(18) text: At the beginning of each month, the Payroll Clerk shall pay out to each Player for the designated Salary for each Office that Player has held for a total of at least 12 days in the preceding month. There is a Basic Officer Salary, equal to a number of Stems, the level of which is set by the Treasuror, as described in other Rules. Salaries are permitted to be expressed in terms of the Basic Salary. The Salary for an Office shall be specified in the Treasuror's Budget; if an Office's Salary is not so specified, it is equal to the Basic Salary. history: ... [orphaned text: Officers (excluding Viziers, Ordinancekeepors, and any other Officers whose duties pertain only to a single Group) shall receive a salary of 3 Points per week, unless another Rule explicitly states another salary. All salaries shall be paid at the beginning of each Nomic week, on condition that the Officer has been in Office for at least five days. The second paragraph of this Rule takes precedence over all Rules that determine payday differently. (*Was: 849*) ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 852 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 852 by Proposal 852 (Oerjan), 17 March 1994 text: It is never a Crime for any Player to perform an action which is required of em by the Rules. This Rule takes precedence over any Rules defining what is or is not a Crime. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 853 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 853 by Proposal 853 (Oerjan), 17 March 1994 text: In order to make an Oath, a Player must send a message to at least one other Player, stating the fact that they are making an Oath, and what the Oath is. If someone makes an Oath, e must do that which e has sworn to do, as long as it is legal for em to do so. E who defies this has broken this Rule, and shall also be guilty of a Class C Crime. No rule may force someone to make an Oath; this rule takes precedence over all rules that attempt to do so. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 855 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 855 by Proposal 855 (Garth), 17 March 1994 text: Marks are a Conserved Quantity. The total number of Marks is Public Information. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 856,924 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 856 by Proposal 856 (Garth), 17 March 1994 text: Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new Conserved Quantity. history: Amended by Proposal 924 (Jason), 27 June 1994 text: Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new Conserved Quantity. This rule takes precedence over any other rules regarding voting. history: Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994 text: Any Proposal which introduces a new way to Create or Destroy a Conserved Quantity shall require at least three times as many FOR Votes as AGAINST Votes in order to pass. This restriction does not apply to Proposals which define new Conserved Quantities or Create the initial stock of a new Conserved Quantity. This rule takes precedence over any other rules regarding voting. (*Was: 856*) history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 861,883 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 861 by Proposal 861 (Stella?), 17 March 1994 text: The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet. The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a bonus of five Points. If another Player than the Ambassador locates such a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the Ambassador to this Player. history: Amended by Proposal 883 (Stella?), 13 April 1994 text: The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet. The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a bonus of five Points. If another Player than the Ambassador locates such a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the Ambassador to this Player. To qualify for the reward, at least half the Players of such a Game should not play already in *this* Nomic Game. history: Amended by Rule 750, 13 April 1994 text: The Ambassador shall do eis best to locate other Nomic or Nomiclike Games taking place on the Internet. The find of any such Game will be rewarded by a bonus of five Points. If another Player than the Ambassador locates such a Game first, five Points will be transfered from the Ambassador to this Player. To qualify for the reward, at least half the Players of such a Game should not play already in *this* Nomic Game. (*Was: 861*) history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 862 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 862 by Proposal 862 (Stella?), 17 March 1994 text: Let there exist the Patent Title of Entrepreneur. This Title will be awarded to the most enterprizing Free Enterprizer. The Entrepreneur will be chosen by means of an election organized by the Banker, by any means he sees fit. Candidates for the Title are Chuck, KoJen, Oerjan and Waggie. This Rule can only be amended by a Proposal to award the Patent Title of Entrepreneur to another Player. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 864 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 864 by Proposal 864 (Dave Bowen), 4 April 1994 text: Any Marks created through the passage of the Walrus Rules (Rules 818 and 819) shall be destroyed. If any of these Marks have' been converted into points, those points earned shall be returned to the Point Reserve. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 865,928 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 865 by Proposal 865 (KoJen), 4 April 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Proposal. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. history: Amended by Proposal 928 (Stella?), 27 June 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. history: Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. This is done be posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to the Public Forum, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more than four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Nomic community, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. (*Was: 865*) history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 866,929 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 866 by Proposal 866 (KoJen), 4 April 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Group members, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Proposal. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. history: Amended by Proposal 929 (Stella?), 27 June 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Group members, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. history: Amended by Rule 750, 27 June 1994 text: Players are urged to "proto-Propose" an idea before submitting it as an official Proposal. Should the Proposer desire, e may decide to proto-Propose it to eir own Group rather than to the Public Forum. This is done by Posting the complete Proposal as it would be submitted, to all Active members of eir Group, adding the prefix "proto-" to the word "PROPOSAL", at least one Week and no more then four Weeks before the Proposal is submitted to the Speaker. The submitter is encouraged but not required to take into account suggestions by the Group members, and modify the proto-proposal before submitting as an official Proposal. When proposed in this manner, the Proposer receives 2 Points, at the end of the Voting Period on that Proposal. The Speaker must mention this payment when e distributes the Voting results. To be eligible for this, the submitter must indicate to the Speaker when and to whom the Proposal was proto-Proposed, and what changes were incorporated. A Proposal must be a "reasonably plausible evolution" of its proto-Proposal or this credit does not apply. In case of a violation, the submitter, and not the Speaker shall be the Guilty Party. (*Was: 866*) history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 867 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 867 by Proposal 867 (KoJen), 4 April 1994 text: If there is currently a distributed Proposal X, or a submitted but not-yet-distributed Proposal-to-be X, whose effect includes the amending or repeal of Rule Y, then no additional Proposals whose effect includes the amending or repeal of the same Rule Y shall be accepted until the outcome of Proposal X is decided. Responsibility of enforcing this is given to the Speaker, who shall return such submissions to the sender, as they are not properly made proposals. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 893 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 893 by Proposal 893 (Nicol), 22 April 1994 text: Newer foreign policy directives take precedence over older ones. A foreign policy directive may be dropped from the records only after it has explicitly been superceded in another foreign policy directive. history: ... history: Amended(1) by Proposal 1467, 8 March 1995 text: Newer foreign policy directives take precedence over older ones. A foreign policy directive may be dropped from the records by Explicit Self-Repeal, or by being explicitly superceded by another directive, or by being repealed via another directive. history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 894,895 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 894 by Proposal 894 (Garth), 22 April 1994 text: New kinds of Rule Changes may be defined by the Rules, so long as they Create, Amend, Repeal, Transmute, or otherwise change one or more Rules, without making any other direct changes to the Game State. All proposed Rule Changes are Proposals. Other kinds of Proposal may be defined by the Rules. They shall be treated as proposed Rule Changes in all respects, save that they shall not change any Rule in any way, and they shall not under any circumstances be incorporated into the Ruleset. A given class of such Proposals shall not be valid unless the Rules define which Player or Players must maintain a current record of that class of Proposals, or explicitly state that that class need not be recorded. The first paragraph of this Rule does not apply to Proposals that are not Rule Changes. This Rule takes precedence over other Rules describing the nature of Rule Changes and/or proposed Rule Changes. history: Transmuted from Mutable to Immutable by Proposal 895 (Garth), 22 April 1994 history: ... ---------------------------------------------------------------------- RULE 897 history: Enacted as Mutable Rule 897 by Proposal 897 (Garth), 22 April 1994 text: A Player that Calls For Judgement may Bar up to three Players from Judging that Statement. Players that have been Barred from a Statement are ineligible to render Judgement on that Statement. history: Amended(1) by Proposal 2457, 16 February 1996 text: The Player who submits a Call for Judgement is permitted to specify up to three Players who are to be Barred from Judging that CFJ. Any Players that are so Barred are ineligible to Judge that CFJ. history: Amended(2) by Proposal 3839 (Murphy), 8 March 1999 text: The Caller of a CFJ may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ. Any Player whose Executor is the Caller of a CFJ is Barred from Judging that CFJ. Any Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ. history: Amended(3) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 text: A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ. Any Player sharing an Executor with the Caller of a CFJ is automatically Barred from Judging that CFJ. When submitting a CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ. history: Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ. When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant's registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below. The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ. A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ. When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ. The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plantiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge. history: Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ. When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant's registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below. The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ. A Player Barred from Judging a CFJ is ineligible to Judge that CFJ. When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ. The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge. history: Amended(6) by Proposal 5001 (root, Quazie), 12 June 2007 text: The Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of a CFJ, along with any additional material submitted by the Caller and the Defendant if any (including but not limited to Arguments and Evidence), no later than the time e announces the identity of the first Judge assigned to that CFJ. When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant's registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below. The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being part of a defense, will become part of the material of that CFJ. A player barred from judging a CFJ is ineligible to judge that CFJ. The caller of a CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. When submitting a general CFJ, the Caller may Bar up to three Players from Judging that CFJ. The defendant of a Civil CFJ is automatically barred from judging it. The Plaintiff may bar one other Player when e submits the CFJ. The Defendant may bar one other Player from judging any time before the CFJ is assigned to a judge. history: Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 text: When a Civil CFJ is submitted, the Clerk of the Courts shall publish the text of the CFJ and send a copy of the CFJ to the Defendant's registered e-mail address, if any, and inform the Defendant that e has one week to publish a defense and/or bar a Player from judging as described below. The CotC will not assign a Civil CFJ to a judge until one week has passed since after a publication. During this time, any evidence or arguments, published or submitted to the CotC by the Defendant with the clear intent of being