[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