THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET Most Recent Ruleset Change Recorded: Adoption of Proposal 7846, 9 May 2017 Online documents: http://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_flr.txt (FLR) http://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/rkeep/current_slr.txt (SLR) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Index of Rules * The Game of Agora Rule 101: The Game of Agora Rule 869: How to Join and Leave Agora Rule 2141: Role and Attributes of Rules Rule 478: Fora Rule 2449: Winning the Game Rule 1698: Agora Is A Nomic * Mutability Rule 2125: Regulation Regulations Rule 1688: Power Rule 2140: Power Controls Mutability Rule 1030: Precedence between Rules Rule 2240: No Cretans Need Apply * Mechanisms Rule 105: Rule Changes Rule 106: Adopting Proposals Rule 2162: Switches Rule 1728: Dependent Actions Rule 2124: Agoran Satisfaction Rule 2466: Acting on Behalf * Politics Rule 1006: Offices Rule 103: The Speaker Rule 2423: First Among Equals Rule 2451: Executive Orders Rule 2463: Motion of No Confidence Rule 2154: Election Procedure Rule 2472: Office Incompatibilities * Proposals Rule 2350: Proposals Rule 2445: How to Pend a Proposal Rule 2443: Expediting Proposals Rule 1607: Distribution Rule 2431: Proposal Competitions * Decisions Rule 2137: The Assessor Rule 693: Agoran Decisions Rule 107: Initiating Agoran Decisions Rule 208: Resolving Agoran Decisions Rule 1950: Decisions with Adoption Indices Rule 879: Quorum * Voting Rule 683: Voting on Agoran Decisions Rule 2422: Voting Strength Rule 2127: Conditional Votes Rule 2168: Extending the voting period Rule 955: Determining the Will of Agora Rule 2034: Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges * Interpretations Rule 991: Calls for Judgement Rule 591: Delivering Judgements Rule 217: Interpreting the Rules Rule 2152: Mother, May I? Rule 911: Motions and Moots Rule 2175: Judicial Retraction and Excess Rule 1023: Common Definitions Rule 1769: Holidays Rule 2448: Eras * Violations Rule 2486: The Royal Parade Rule 2426: Cards Rule 2477: The Referee Rule 2478: Vigilante Justice Rule 2479: Official Justice Rule 2474: Green Cards Rule 2427: Yellow Cards Rule 2475: Red Cards Rule 2476: Pink Slips Rule 2450: Pledges Rule 2471: No Faking Rule 1789: Cantus Cygneus * Rulesets Rule 1051: The Rulekeepor Rule 1681: The Logical Rulesets Rule 2327: Read the Ruleset Week Rule 2429: Bleach Rule 2430: Cleanup Time * Recordkeeping Rule 2143: Official Reports and Duties Rule 2379: No News Is Some News Rule 2160: Deputisation Rule 1551: Ratification Rule 2202: Ratification Without Objection Rule 2201: Self-Ratification Rule 2446: The Agoran Newspaper Rule 2138: The Associate Director of Personnel Rule 2139: The Registrar * The Economy Rule 2483: Economics Rule 2484: Payday Rule 2487: Shiny Supply Level Rule 2488: The Surveyor Rule 2489: Estates Rule 2490: Estate Ballots Rule 2491: Estate Auctions Rule 2485: You can't take it with you * Collective Structures Rule 2456: The Secretary Rule 2459: Organizations Rule 2460: Organizational Restructuring Rule 2461: Death and Birth of Organizations Rule 2462: Bankruptcy Rule 2457: Lockout Rule 2458: Invoking Lockout Rule 2467: Agencies Rule 2468: Superintendent * Winning Rule 2452: Trust Tokens Rule 2438: Ribbons Rule 2444: Silver Quill Rule 2464: Tournaments Rule 2482: Victory Elections Rule 2465: Victory by Apathy * Death of the Republic Rule 2480: Festivals Rule 2481: Festival Restrictions * Trophies Rule 649: Patent Titles Rule 1367: Degrees Rule 2231: Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic Rule 2415: Badges Rule 104: First Speaker Rule 1727: Happy Birthday Rule 2029: Town Fountain (Garbage Bin) Current total number of rules: 113 1 with Power=4 1 with Power=3.2 1 with Power=3.14 1 with Power=3.1 41 with Power=3 2 with Power=2.1 19 with Power=2 5 with Power=1.7 2 with Power=1.5 6 with Power=1.2 29 with Power=1 4 with Power=0.5 1 with Power=0.3 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules are listed as follows: Rule / () <Text of Rule> Annotations in square brackets are unofficial and have no legal force. They are added at the Rulekeepor's discretion. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== The Game of Agora ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 101/17 (Power=3) The Game of Agora Agora is a game of Nomic, wherein Persons, acting in accordance with the Rules, communicate their game Actions and/or results of these actions via Fora in order to play the game. The game may be won, but the game never ends. Please treat Agora Right Good Forever. [CFJ 24: Players must obey the Rules even in out-of-game actions.] [CFJ 825 (called 7 November 1995): Players must obey the Rules even if no Rule says so.] [CFJ 1848 (called 21 December 2007): The game must operate according to the rules that prevail at the time, and not attempt to incorporate any retroactive changes made in the future.] [CFJ 1709 (called 26 July 2007): The rules are binding on all those who play the game in the broader sense, regardless of whether they have the rule-defined status of "player".] [CFJs 1911-1914 (called 18 March 2008): Physical realities supersede the Rules by default.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(2) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5090 (Zefram), 25 July 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5731 (Goethe; disi.), 8 October 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5769 (Goethe), 17 October 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5773 (Goethe), 17 October 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 6028 (Murphy), 8 January 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 6158 (Goethe), 31 March 2009 Amended(13) by Proposal 6589 (c.; disi.), 6 December 2009 Amended(14) by Proposal 7183 (G.), 26 February 2012 Amended(15) by Proposal 7596 (omd), 14 September 2013 Retitled and amended(16) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(17) by Proposal 7743 (G.), 12 May 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 869/39 (Power=3) How to Join and Leave Agora Any organism that is generally capable of freely originating and communicating independent thoughts and ideas is a person. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, no other entities are persons. Citizenship is a person switch with values Unregistered (default) and Registered, tracked by the Registrar. Changes to citizenship are secured. A registered person is a Player. A person CAN (unless explicitly forbidden or prevented by the rules) register by publishing a message that indicates reasonably clearly and reasonably unambiguously that e intends to become a player at that time. A person, by registering, agrees to abide by the Rules. The Rules CANNOT otherwise bind a person to abide by any agreement without that person's willful consent. A player CAN deregister (cease being a player) by announcement. If e does so, e CANNOT register by announcement for 30 days. If a player has not sent a message to a public forum in the last month, then any player CAN deregister em without objection. The Rules CANNOT compel non-players to act, nor compel players to unduly harass non-players. A non-person CANNOT be a player, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. [CFJ 1275 (called 19 February 2001): An entity is a Player if the Rules cannot distinguish that entity from a Player.] [CFJ 1263 (called 5 February 2001): Any message expressing a clear desire or intent to register as a Player counts as a request for registration, whether or not it is explicitly phrased in the manner stipulated by the rules.] History: Created by Proposal 498 (Alexx), Sep. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 869, ca. Apr. 7 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 7 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2040, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2599, May 11 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2718, Oct. 23 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 3475 (Murphy), May 11 1997, substantial Amended(7) by Proposal 3740 (Repeal-O-Matic), May 8 1998 Amended(8) by Proposal 3923 (harvel), Oct. 10 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(11) by Proposal 4155 (harvel), 18 May 2001 Amended(12) by Proposal 4430 (Cecilius), 16 January 2003 Amended(13) by Proposal 4451 (Cecilius), 22 February 2003 Amended(14) by Proposal 4523 (Murphy), 28 August 2003 Amended(15) by Proposal 4693 (Maud), 18 April 2005 Amended(16) by Proposal 4802 (Maud), 15 June 2005 Amended(17) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(18) by Proposal 4989 (Zefram), 6 June 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5011 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5117 (Zefram; disi.), 8 August 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5156 (Zefram), 29 August 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5728 (ihope), 7 October 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5973 (woggle), 25 November 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6349 (Pavitra), 17 June 2009 Amended(30) by Proposal 6382 (Murphy), 3 July 2009 Amended(31) by Proposal 6620 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010 Amended(32) by Proposal 6974 (Murphy), 30 March 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7269 (FKA441344, G.), 25 July 2012 Amended(34) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(35) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(36) by Proposal 7619 (woggle), 24 January 2014 Amended(37) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(38) by Proposal 7734 (G.), 2 May 2015 Amended(39) by Proposal 7810 (nichdel), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2141/9 (Power=3) Role and Attributes of Rules A rule is a type of instrument with the capacity to govern the game generally, and is always taking effect. A rule's content takes the form of a text, and is unlimited in scope. Every rule has power between 0.1 and 4.0 inclusive. It is not possible for a rule to have a power outside this range. Rules have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Rulekeepor. Every rule shall have a title to aid in identification. If a rule ever does not have a title, the Rulekeepor SHALL assign a title to it by announcement in a timely fashion. For the purposes of rules governing modification of instruments, the text, power, ID number, and title of a rule are all substantive aspects of the rule. However, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the Rulekeepor CAN set rule aspects as described elsewhere in this rule. [CFJ 1498 (called 12 April 2004): A rule's title is not strictly a name for the rule, and so rule titles are not subject to the uniqueness requirement on names of rule-defined entities.] [CFJ 2013 (called 17 June 2009): Rule 2141 does not imply that the power of rules is physically unlimited: they can only affect the world outside the game by prescribing or proscribing player behavior.] [CFJ 2213 (called 7 October 2008): The powers granted to rules by the first paragraph of Rule 2141 are general, and only apply as otherwise stated by the Rules.] History: Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5994 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6124 (ehird), 15 March 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6670 (coppro), 14 March 2010 Amended(6) by Proposal 6992 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011 Amended(7) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 March 2013 Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(9) by Proposal 7759 (G.), 19 July 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 478/33 (Power=3) Fora Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved that no Player shall be prohibited from participating in the Fora, nor shall any person create physical or technological obstacles that unduly favor some players' fora access over others. Publicity is a forum switch with values Public, Discussion, and Foreign (default), tracked by the Registrar. Changes to publicity are secured. The Registrar may change the publicity of a forum without objection as long as: (a) e sends eir announcement of intent to that forum; and (b) if the forum is to be made public, the announcement by which the Registrar makes that forum public is sent to all existing public fora. Each player should ensure e can receive messages via each public forum. A public message is a message sent via a public forum, or sent to all players and containing a clear designation of intent to be public. A rule can also designate that a part of one public message is considered a public message in its own right. A person "publishes" or "announces" something by sending a public message. Where the rules define an action that CAN be performed "by announcement", a person performs that action by unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and announcing that e performs it. Any action performed by sending a message is performed at the time date-stamped on that message. Actions in messages (including sub-messages) are performed in the order they appear in the message, unless otherwise specified. [CFJs 1451-1452 (called 6 March 2003): A message that is split into multiple email messages can qualify as a single message for game purposes, if it is obvious how to combine the parts to reconstruct the single message.] [CFJ 752 (called 13 March 1995): Something sent to a Player who is obligated to send it to all Players is sufficient for sending something to the PF.] [CFJ 813 (called 22 October 1995): A Player need not prove that e can receive the PF.] [CFJ 831 (called 10 November 1995): The Date: header of a message is not necessarily the time at which the message takes effect.] [CFJ 2205 (called 2 October 2008): A message takes effect at exactly one of the times date-stamped on it; selecting which one is a matter of game custom.] [CFJ 2212 (called 7 October 2008): An IRC channel is a forum.] [CFJ 2211 (called 7 October 2008): It is generally possible for an IRC channel to be a public forum. [CFJ 2214 (called 7 October 2008): Some IRC messages, such as NICK, are sent to all members of an IRC channel but are not sent via that channel.] [CFJ 866 (called 8 April 1996): A message is "received" when the message enters the recipient's normal technical domain of control, whether this be eir private machine or eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine itself, if the recipient does not control it).] [CFJ 1112: In order to submit a Proposal, in the sense of R1865 and elsewhere, it is not sufficient that a collection of text 'with the clear indication that that text is intended to become a Proposal' (R1483) merely be sent to the Public Forum by a Proposing Entity; the collection of text must also be received in the Public Forum.] [CFJ 1314 (called 15 August 2001): If a message sent to a public forum is rejected by the list moderator, it still qualifies as having been sent via a public forum.] [CFJ 1905 (called 7 February 2008): Regardless of CFJ 1314, a message has not been sent via a forum until most persons who have arranged to receive messages via the forum receive it.] [CFJ 1888 (called 31 January 2008): Sending a message to a Discussion Forum, or other mailing list except for a Public Forum, does not qualify as sending it to all players.] [CFJ 1631 (called 29 April 2007): Public announcements must be made in the message body; the subject line is insignificant.] [CFJ 1784 (called 5 November 2007): An undescriptive or misleading subject line does not deprive the message body of effect.] [CFJ 1880 (called 22 January 2008): A phrase that would, in the message body, cancel the effect of the rest of the message, does not have such an effect if it appears in the subject line.] [CFJ 1761 (called 30 September 2007): Publishing part of a message is a different action from publishing the whole message.] [CFJ 1646 (called 30 April 2007): The act of "publishing" or "announcing" is accomplished when the message has left the sender's technical domain of control, indicated by one of the "Received:" headers.] [CFJ 1695 (called 23 June 2007): A partnership, which by its nature can't directly send email, can participate in the fora by means of its members sending messages on its behalf, if its governing agreement says so.] [CFJ 1768 (called 22 October 2007): The right of participation in the fora is the right to participate in them for their intended purposes, and is not necessarily infringed by regulations regarding the manner and type of participation.] [CFJ 1738 (called 29 August 2007): An obligation on a player to not publish statements that e believes are true would conflict with the right of participation in the fora.] [CFJ 1719 (called 12 August 2007): A player can, if e intends, have public messages sent on eir behalf, including via a web form that allows all-comers to send messages on eir behalf without specific approval.] [CFJs 1833-1834 (called 18 December 2007): A player can, by contractual arrangement, grant another player the capacity to act by announcement on eir behalf.] [CFJ 1893 (called 3 February 2008): A non-consensual non-contractual arrangement cannot grant a player the capacity to act by announcement on behalf of another.] [CFJ 2397 (caled 3 March 2009): A player can grant or revoke permission at will for another player to act by announcement on eir behalf.] [CFJ 2322 (called 24 December 2008): The ability to act on behalf can be created by any willful agreement.] [CFJ 1336 (called 13 December 2001): A public statement that one wishes to perform an action that one can perform by announcement can constitute an announcement that performs that action.] [CFJ 1621 (called 8 February 2007): Where an action can be performed by announcement, announcing that one deems something to be the case that would result from that action does not constitute performing the action.] [CFJ 1584 (called 24 February 2006), CFJ 1728 (called 20 August 2007): Saying "I do X 1000 times", where X is something that can be done by announcement, is an acceptable shorthand for 1000 instances of "I do X", but this shorthand cannot be used with an infinite repeat count, because it is impossible to write out an infinite number of instances of "I do X".] [CFJ 1774 (called 1 November 2007): Saying "I do X 10000 times", where X is something that can be done by announcement, does not necessarily achieve 10000 instances of X, if writing out 10000 instances of "I do X" would be a substantial effort such that using the shorthand is abusive. The presumption is in favour of the shorthand being successful.] [CFJ 1775 (called 1 November 2007): If an announcement of the form "I do X N times" is not be acceptable shorthand for N instances of "I do X", then the announcement is completely nullified, and does not have the effect of M instances of "I do X" for any non-zero repeat count M.] [CFJ 1730 (called 22 August 2007): An appropriate announcement will accomplish an action even if its author believed the action was impossible.] [CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): A message-based action cannot be retroactive.] [CFJ 1971 (called 22 May 2008): An announcement with a general disclaimer as to its contents cannot fulfill a requirement to report information, but it may successfully cause game actions to be taken if the actions do not depend on the truth value of the disclaimed contents.] [CFJ 2133 (called 9 August 2008): A disclaimed statement cannot cause an action to be taken by announcement.] [CFJ 2112 (called 23 July 2008): An action is only taken by announcement if the Rules define it as such; e.g., posting an objection to a dependent action is not an action taken by announcement.] [CFJ 2151 (called 5 September 2008): Some unregulated actions, such as celebrating and revealing things, can be taken by announcement.] [CFJ 2086 (called 15 July 2008): Message-based actions are always taken in some order, never precisely simultaneously, possibly unless otherwise stated.] [CFJ 2179 (called 23 September 2008): An message-based action can be taken even if its sender cannot be identified.] [CFJ 2221 (called 13 October 2008): When an action is specified as "can do X in order to do Y", and a player does X without specifying intent to do Y, e does not do Y.] [CFJ 2238 (called 22 October 2008): The requirement of unambiguous specification applies to the parameters of an action.] [CFJ 2363 (called 1 February 2009): "X can do Y by doing Z" does not imply that X can do Z.] [CFJ 2441 (called 6 April 2009): Due to a limitation of the mailing list archives, attaching a message with a particular text does not count as publishing that text.] [CFJ 3025 (called 15 May 2011): If it is clear what he did, then it must be clear what he did; if it is not clear what he did, then it is not clear what he did.] [CFJ 3106 (called 19 October 2011): When a person announces that "e performs" an action, the referent of "e" (i.e. eir identity) must be clear.] [CFJ 3002 (called 19 April 2011): A message of the form "This statement causes [action]" is ineffective as a way to perform [action], and may be an attempt to act on behalf of the statement.] [CFJ 2899 (called 12 November 2010): A player's real name does not necessary identify em.] History: Created by Proposal 478 (Jim Shea), Sep. 20 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1477, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1576, Apr. 28 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1610, Jul. 10 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1700, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2052, Dec. 19 1995 Amended(6) by Proposal 2400, Jan. 20 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2739 (Swann), Nov. 7 1996, substantial Amended(8) by Proposal 2791 (Andre), Jan. 30 1997, substantial Amended(9) by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997, substantial Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(12) by Proposal 4248 (Murphy), 19 February 2002 Amended(13) by Proposal 4456 (Maud), 22 February 2003 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(14) by Proposal 4690 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(15) by Proposal 4833 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(16) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(17) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5014 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5272 (Murphy; disi.), 7 November 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5291 (root), 14 November 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5613 (Quazie), 29 July 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5639 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6785 (coppro; disi.), 22 August 2010 Amended(29) by Proposal 6963 (Murphy), 20 March 2011 Amended(30) by Proposal 7073 (woggle), 16 June 2011 Amended(31) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(32) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(33) by Proposal 7810 (nichdel), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2449/2 (Power=3) Winning the Game When the Rules state that a person or persons win the game, those persons win the game; specifically they win the Round that ends with the indicated win. Agora itself does not end and the ruleset remains unchanged. The Herald is then authorized to award those persons the Patent Title of Champion. History: Created by Proposal 7760 (G.), 19 July 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7808 (G.), 10 August 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7812 (G.), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1698/4 (Power=3) Agora Is A Nomic Agora is ossified if it is IMPOSSIBLE for any reasonable combination of actions by players to cause arbitrary rule changes to be made and/or arbitrary proposals to be adopted within a four-week period. If, but for this rule, the net effect of a proposal would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it cannot take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. If any other single change to the gamestate would cause Agora to become ossified, or would cause Agora to cease to exist, it is cancelled and does not occur, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Created by Proposal 3465 (Steve), Apr. 26 1997 Retitled by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 7075 (scshunt), 16 June 2011 Amended(3) by Proposal 7088 (omd), 23 July 2011 Amended(4) by Proposal 7628 (ais523), 7 April 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Mutability ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2125/8 (Power=3) Regulation Regulations An action is regulated if: (1) the Rules limit, allow, enable, or permit its performance; (2) describe the circumstances under which the action would succeed or fail; or (3) the action would, as part of its effect, modify information for which some player is required to be a recordkeepor. Regulated Actions CAN only be performed as described by the Rules. The Rules SHALL NOT be interpreted so as to proscribe unregulated actions. History: Created by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 5235 (Goddess Eris), 3 October 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5536 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5739 (root), 9 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6251 (Murphy), 9 May 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6269 (Pavitra), 11 May 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 6327 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1688/8 (Power=3) Power The Power of an entity is a non-negative rational number. An Instrument is an entity with positive Power. The Power of an entity cannot be set or modified except as stipulated by the Rules. All entities have Power zero except where specifically allowed by the rules. Power less than one is called Ephemeral power, and an instrument with a power less than one is an Ephemeral instrument. A Rule that makes a change, action, or value secured (hereafter the securing Rule) thereby makes it IMPOSSIBLE to perform that change or action, or to set or modify that value, except as allowed by an Instrument with Power greater than or equal to the change's Power Threshold. This Threshold defaults to the securing Rule's Power, but CAN be lowered as allowed by that Rule (including by the Rule itself). History: Created by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3994 (harvel), Apr. 20 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6513 (coppro; disi.), 3 October 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6815 (Murphy, ais523), 4 September 2010 Amended(7) by Proposal 7759 (G.), 19 July 2015 Amended(8) by Proposal 7781 (the Warrigal), 14 August 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2140/1 (Power=3) Power Controls Mutability No entity with power below the power of this rule can (a) cause an entity to have power greater than its own. (b) adjust the power of an instrument with power greater than its own. (c) set or modify any other substantive aspect of an instrument with power greater than its own. A "substantive" aspect of an instrument is any aspect that affects the instrument's operation. [CFJ 2981 (called 21 March 2011): An attribute of an instrument is not "modified" when an initial value is set for it.] [CFJ 2945 (called 22 December 2010): An attribute of an entity is "changed" when it is removed/unset.] History: Created by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(1) by Proposal 6992 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1030/11 (Power=3.2) Precedence between Rules In a conflict between Rules, the conflict shall be resolved by performing the following comparisons in the sequence written in this rule, until the conflict is resolved. - In a conflict between Rules with different Power, the Rule with the higher Power takes precedence over the Rule with the lower Power; otherwise, - 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 be used to resolve the conflicts; otherwise, - 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 be used to resolve the conflict, unless they lead to contradictions between each other; otherwise, - If any of the rules in conflict have ID numbers, then the Rule with the lowest ID number takes precedence; otherwise, - The Rule enacted earliest takes precedence. Clauses in any other rule that broadly claim precedence (e.g. over "all rules" of a certain class) shall be, prima facie, considered to be limited claims of precedence or deference that are applicable only when such claims are evaluated as described within the above sequence. No change to the Ruleset can occur that would cause a Rule to directly claim precedence over this Rule as a means of determining precedence. This applies to changes by the enactment or amendment of a Rule, or of any other form. This Rule takes precedence over any Rule that would permit such a change to the Ruleset. [CFJ 1104 (called 20 August 1998): The presence in a Rule of deference clause, claiming that the Rule defers to another Rule, does not prevent a conflict with the other Rule arising, but shows only how the Rule says that conflict is to be resolved when it does arise.] [CFJs 1114-1115 (called 27 January 1999): This Rule is to be applied to resolve Rule conflicts on a case-by-case basis; just because a Rule is inapplicable in one situation due to conflict with a Rule of higher precedence does not mean that the Rule is nullified in all cases.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 212, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 1030, Sep. 15 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 15 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1527, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2520, Mar. 10 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2763 (Steve), Nov. 30 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(5) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 6285 (Goethe), 19 May 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009 Title changed by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009 Power changed from 3 to 3.2 by Proposal 6292 (Goethe), 19 May 2009 Amended(9) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009 Amended(10) by Proposal 7235 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(11) by Proposal 7334 (woggle), 27 March 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2240/1 (Power=3) No Cretans Need Apply In a conflict between clauses of the same Rule, if exactly one claims precedence over the other, then it takes precedence; otherwise, the later clause takes precedence. History: Created by Proposal 6073 (Murphy), 22 February 2009 Amended(1) by Proposal 6429 (Murphy), 18 August 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Mechanisms ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 105/12 (Power=3) Rule Changes 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 or if it specifies a power less than 0.1, 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) reenact a rule. A repealed rule identified by its most recent rule number may be reenacted with the same ID number and the next change identifier. If no text is specified, the rule is reenacted with the same text it had when it was most recently repealed. If the reenacting proposal provides new text for the rule, the rule must have materially the same purpose as did the repealed version; otherwise, the attempt to reenact the rule is null and void. (d) amend the text of a rule. (e) retitle a rule. (f) 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. An inconsequential variation in the quotation of an existing rule does not constitute ambiguity for the purposes of this rule, but any other variation does. A rule change is wholly prevented from taking effect unless its full text was published, along with an unambiguous and clear specification of the method to be used for changing the rule, at least 4 days and no more than 60 days before it would otherwise take effect. 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. [CFJ 1499 (called 20 April 2004), CFJ 1623 (called 1 April 2007): If a low-power rule states that an officer can repeal the rule under certain circumstances, then the rule cannot actually be repealed by this process, because the officer, not being an instrument, is categorically incapable of performing rule changes; this is different from the situation where a rule can be triggered to repeal itself.] [CFJ 708 (called October 1994): An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule Change.] [CFJ 1625 (called 1 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a rule to amend by both number and title, and the number and title given identify different rules, this constitutes ambiguity that nullifies the attempted rule change.] [CFJ 1644 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Change the power of rule NNNN to P and amend it by XXX.", where XXX specifies a text change, this constitutes two attempted rule changes.] [CFJ 1638 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Amend rule NNNN by YYY.", this constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes, even though both attempt to amend the same rule.] [CFJ 1642 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX. Further amend rule NNNN by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes two separate attempts at rule changes.] [CFJ 1640 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though it is specified in two parts.] [CFJ 1641 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal contains the form of words "Amend rule NNNN by XXX and by YYY.", where both XXX and YYY specify text changes, this constitutes a single attempt at a rule change, even though it is specified in two parts.] [CFJ 1643 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal specifies a single rule amendment in two parts, and one of the parts is not possible but the other is possible, the possible part is applied alone.] [CFJ 2201 (called 30 September 2008): The permission required by Rule 105 need not be explicit.] History: Created by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Renumbered from 2131 to 105 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Retitled by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4894 (Murphy), 12 February 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4940 (Zefram), 29 April 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6734 (comex), 6 June 2010 Amended(5) by Proposal 6741 (comex; disi.), 1 July 2010 Amended(6) by Proposal 7433 (Walker), 27 May 2013 Amended(7) by Proposal 7607 (OscarMeyr), 13 December 2013 Amended(8) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(9) by SLR ratification (Proposal 7638; omd), 1 May 2014 Amended(10) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(11) by Proposal 7710 (G.), 3 November 2014 Amended(12) by Proposal 7759 (G.), 19 July 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 106/36 (Power=3) Adopting Proposals When a decision about whether to adopt a proposal is resolved, if the outcome is ADOPTED, then the proposal in question 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. Except as prohibited by other rules, a proposal that takes effect CAN and does, as part of its effect, apply the changes that it specifies. If the proposal cannot make some such changes, this does not preclude the other changes from taking place. If there is no Agoran Decision to adopt a particular proposal that has an outcome of ADOPTED, that proposal CANNOT take effect, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Preventing a proposal from taking effect is a secured change; this does not apply to generally preventing changes to specified areas of the gamestate, nor to a proposal preventing itself from taking effect (its no-effect clause is generally interpreted as applying only to the rest of the proposal). [CFJ 1639 (called 29 April 2007): Where a proposal attempts two separate amendments of the text of the same rule, if one of the attempted amendments is not possible and the other is then the possible amendment does in fact occur, unless the proposal explicitly requires a different resolution.] [CFJ 1841 (called 20 December 2007): It is possible for a proposal to have retroactive effect.] [CFJ 2162 (called 14 September 2008): The retroactive effect of a proposal cannot actually alter the past.] [CFJ 2163 (called 14 September 2008): There is no possible proposal text that would cause a proposal to take effect without being adopted.] [CFJ 2259 (called 6 November 2008): The possibility of the instantaneous effects of a proposal are governed by the rules.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 106, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1073, Oct. 4 1994 Amended by Proposal 1278, Oct. 24 1994 Renumbered from 1073 to 106 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994 Infected, but not amended, by Rule 1454, May 7 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3736 (Blob), May 3 1998 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4918 (OscarMeyr), 2 April 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5010 (Levi), 24 June 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5083 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5356 (root), 16 December 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5572 (Murphy), 4 July 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 6022 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(16) by cleaning (comex), 12 February 2009 Amended(17) by Proposal 6089 (Goethe), 22 February 2009 Amended(18) by Proposal 6090 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009 Amended(19) by Proposal 6113 (Goethe), 1 March 2009 Amended(20) by Proposal 6222 (coppro), 27 April 2009 Amended(21) by Proposal 6398 (C-walker; disi.), 17 July 2009 Amended(22) by Proposal 6414 (C-walker), 8 August 2009 Amended(23) by Proposal 6469 (coppro; disi.), 15 September 2009 Amended(24) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009 Amended(25) by Proposal 6625 (Murphy), 20 February 2010 Amended(26) by Proposal 6656 (coppro), 1 March 2010 Amended(27) by Proposal 6721 (coppro; disi), 21 May 2010 Amended(28) by Proposal 6732 (comex), 13 June 2010 Amended(29) by Proposal 6823 (Murphy, omd), 10 September 2010 Amended(30) by Proposal 6968 (Murphy, scshunt, Wooble), 20 March 2011 Amended(31) by Proposal 7013 (omd), 23 April 2011 Amended(32) by Proposal 7081 (Murphy), 4 July 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011 Amended(34) by Proposal 7086 (G., omd), 23 July 2011 Amended(35) by Proposal 7246 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(36) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2162/7 (Power=2) Switches A type of switch is a property that the rules define as a switch, and specify the following: a) The type(s) of entity possessing an instance of that switch. No other entity possesses an instance of that switch. b) One or more possible values for instances of that switch, exactly one of which is designated as the default. No other values are possible for instances of that switch. c) Optionally, exactly one office whose holder tracks instances of that switch. That officer's (weekly, if not specified otherwise) report includes the value of each instance of that switch whose value is not its default value; a public document purporting to be this portion of that officer's report is self-ratifying, and implies that other instances are at their default value. At any given time, each instance of a switch has exactly one possible value for that type of switch. If an instance of a switch comes to have a value, it ceases to have any other value. If an instance of a switch would otherwise fail to have a possible value, it comes to have its default value. "To flip an instance of a switch" is to make it come to have a given value. "To become X" (where X is a possible value of exactly one of the subject's switches) is to flip that switch to X. If an action or set of actions would cause the value of an instance of a switch to become indeterminate, the instance instead takes on its last determinate and possible value, if any, otherwise it takes on its default value. A natural switch is a switch with a default value of 0, unless the rules explicitly specify a different default value. If the rules define an upper limit for the switch, then the possible values are non-negative integers not greater than that limit, otherwise the values are the non-negative integers. A singleton switch is a switch for which Agora Nomic is the only entity possessing an instance of that switch. A boolean switch is a switch with values True and False. A positive boolean switch has a default of True; a negative boolean switch has a default of False. History: Created by Proposal 5111 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5271 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 7247 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(3) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012 Amended(4) by Proposal 7425 (Walker, G., Murphy, omd), 27 May 2013 Amended(5) by Proposal 7649 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(6) by Proposal 7735 (aranea), 2 May 2015 Amended(7) by Proposal 7828 (aranea, ais523), 7 November 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1728/35 (Power=3) Dependent Actions A rule which purports to allow a person (the performer) to perform an action by a set of one or more of the following methods (N is 1 unless otherwise specified): 1) Without N Objections, where N is a positive integer no greater than 8. ("Without Objection" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.) 2) With N Supporters, where N is a positive integer. ("With Support" is shorthand for this method with N = 1.) 3) With N Agoran Consent, where N is an integer multiple of 0.1 with a minimum of 1. 4) With Notice. 5) With T Notice, where T is a time period. thereby allows em to perform the action by announcement if all of the following are true: a) A person (the initiator) announced intent to perform the action, unambiguously and clearly specifying the action and method(s) (including the value of N and/or T for each method), at most fourteen days earlier. b) If the action is to be performed With N Objections, With N Agoran Consent, or With Notice, if the intent was announced at least 4 days earlier. c) If the action is to be performed With T Notice, if the intent was announced at least T earlier. d) At least one of the following is true: 1) The performer is the initiator. 2) The initiator was authorized to perform the action due to holding a rule-defined position now held by the performer. 3) The initiator is authorized to perform the action, the action depends on support, the performer has supported the intent, and the rule authorizing the performance does not explicitly prohibit supporters from performing it. e) Agora is Satisfied with the announced intent, as defined by other rules. f) If a set of conditions for the performance of the action was given in the announcement of intent to perform the action, all those conditions are met. The actor SHOULD publish a list of supporters if the action depends on support, and a list of objectors if it depends on objections. [CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): The method of dependent action need not be described exactly: an approximate but inexact description suffices, as does the rule-defined term.] [CFJ 1802 (called 19 November 2007): The phrase "by Agoran Support" is not an unambiguous description of a method of dependent action.] History: Created by Proposal 3521 (Chuck), Jun. 23 1997 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Nov. 2 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Rule 1728, Nov. 16 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3812 (Steve), Dec. 21 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3836 (General Chaos), Mar. 2 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3973 (harvel), Feb. 14 2000 Amended(7) by Proposal 3991 (Steve), Mar. 30 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4011 (Wes), Jun. 1 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001 Amended(9) by Proposal 4121 (Ziggy), Mar. 16 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4279 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4461 (Maud), 17 March 2003 Amended(12) by Proposal 4915 (Murphy), 2 April 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 4981 (Zefram), 31 May 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 4999 (Zefram), 12 June 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5543 (Murphy, Pavitra, root), 16 June 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5775 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5818 (comex), 1 November 2008 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(22) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 6041 (Murphy, Warrigal), 13 January 2009 Amended(24) by Proposal 6204 (Murphy), 27 April 2009 Amended(25) by Proposal 6437 (Murphy), 18 August 2009 Amended(26) by Proposal 6448 (BobTHJ), 27 August 2009 Amended(27) by Proposal 6474 (c.), 15 September 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6512 (c.; disi.), 3 October 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6619 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010 Amended(30) by Proposal 6650 (coppro), 10 March 2010 Amended(31) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011 Amended(32) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013 Amended(34) by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016 Amended(35) by Proposal 7840 (G.), 1 March 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2124/19 (Power=2) Agoran Satisfaction A Supporter of a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) support (syn. "consent") for an announcement of intent to perform the action. An Objector to a dependent action is an eligible entity who has publicly posted (and not withdrawn) an objection to the announcement of intent to perform the action. The entities eligible to support or object to a dependent action are, by default, all players, subject to modification by the document authorizing the dependent action. However, the previous sentence notwithstanding, the Executor of the announcement of intent is not eligible to support it. Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only if: (1) if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it has fewer than N objectors; (2) if the action is to be performed With N supporters, then it has N or more supporters; and (3) if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the action has at least one supporter and no objectors. (4) if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice. The above notwithstanding, if the action depends on objections, and an objection to it has been withdrawn within the past 24 hours, then Agora is not Satisfied with the intent. The above notwithstanding, Agora is not satisfied with the intent if the Speaker has objected to it in the last 48 hours. A person CANNOT support or object to an announcement of intent before the intent is announced, or after e has withdrawn the same type of response. History: Created by Proposal 4853 (Goethe), 18 March 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(2) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(3) by Proposal 4978 (Murphy), 31 May 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5370 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Retitled by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5504 (Murphy), 10 May 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5767 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5995 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 6027 (Elysion), 8 January 2009 Amended(11) by Proposal 6306 (Murphy), 26 May 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 6410 (coppro; disi.), 30 July 2009 Amended(13) by Proposal 6448 (BobTHJ), 27 August 2009 Amended(14) by Proposal 6475 (c.; disi.), 15 September 2009 Amended(15) by Proposal 6512 (c.; disi.), 3 October 2009 Amended(16) by cleaning (Keba), 20 August 2010 Amended(17) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7668 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(19) byProposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2466/0 (Power=3) Acting on Behalf When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, taking into account any prerequisites for the action. If the enabling rule does not specify the mechanism by which the agent may do so, then the agent CAN perform the action in the same manner in which the principal CAN do so, with the additional requirement that the agent must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of that person. When an action is performed on behalf of a principal, then the action is considered for all game purposes to have been performed by the principal. This rule takes precedence over any rule which would prohibit a person from taking an action, except that it defers to any rule that imposes limitations specifically on actions taken on behalf of another person. History: Created by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Politics ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1006/38 (Power=2) Offices Officeholder is an office switch tracked by the ADoP, with possible values of any person or "vacant". An officer is the holder of an office, who may be referred to by the name of that office. If the holder of an office is ever not a player, it becomes vacant. An imposed office is an office described as such by the rule defining it. All others are elected. A person CANNOT be made the holder of an elected office without eir explicit or reasonably implied consent. The holder of an elected office CAN resign it by announcement, causing it to become vacant. Any player CAN cause an office to become vacant without 2 objections. [CFJ 1660 (called 13 May 2007): This rule does not define the meaning of the term "office", in the sense meant by Rule 754, but rather references the usual English definition of "office" and governs offices as thus defined.] [CFJ 1702 (called 12 July 2007): A requirement to submit something to an officer is satisfied by publishing it, even if that office is vacant at the time.] History: Created by Proposal 386 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993 Amended by Proposal 733 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 24 1993 Amended by Proposal 881, ca. Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Proposal 1006, ca. Aug. 25 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 25 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1336, Nov. 22 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1582, May 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1699, Sep. 1 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1763, Oct. 31 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2442, Feb. 6 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 2623, Jun. 19 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(8) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(11) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 4889 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 4980 (Murphy), 31 May 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5029 (Murphy), 28 June 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5070 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5088 (Murphy), 25 July 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 5519 (Murphy), 28 May 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5534 (root; disi.), 7 June 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5986 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 6023 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6372 (G.), 23 June 2009 Amended(29) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009 Amended(30) by Proposal 6482 (c.), 18 September 2009 Amended(31) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010 Amended(32) by Proposal 6790 (Wooble), 27 August 2010 Amended(33) by Proposal 6959 (G.), 31 January 2011 Amended(34) by Proposal 7272 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012 Amended(35) by Proposal 7403 (omd), 27 April 2013 Amended(36) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(37) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(38) by Proposal 7807 (aranea), 10 August 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 103/23 (Power=2) The Speaker The Speaker is an imposed office and the figurehead leader of Agora. The player or players who have most recently won the game are called Laureled. If at any time the office of Speaker is vacant, or when one or more players win Agora, then the Prime Minister CAN and SHALL, once and in a timely fashion, appoint a Laureled player to the office of Speaker. If the office of Speaker has been held continuously by the same person for 90+ days, then any player CAN appoint another player to the office with Support. For an election of the Prime Minister, the Speaker has voting strength one greater than e would have if e did not hold the office. History: Initial Immutable Rule 103, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1481, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3829 (Steve), Feb. 8 1999 Retitled by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 4944 (Zefram), 3 May 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5257 (AFO), 27 October 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 6490 (coppro), 18 September 2009 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 6821 (G., ais523), 4 September 2010 Amended(7) by Proposal 6821 (G., ais523), 4 September 2010 Retitled by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011 Amended(8) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011 Amended(9) by Proposal 7006 (Walker), 20 April 2011 Amended(10) by Proposal 7084 (omd), 23 July 2011 Amended(11) by Proposal 7323 (Machiavelli), 11 January 2013 Amended(12) by Proposal 7336 (woggle), 27 March 2013 Amended(13) by Proposal 7340 (G.), 27 March 2013 Amended(14) by Proposal 7375 (G.), 20 April 2013 Amended(15) by Proposal 7465 (Walker), 17 June 2013 Amended(16) by Proposal 7486 (scshunt), 9 July 2013 Amended(17) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7631 (scshunt), 14 April 2014 Amended(19) by Proposal 7633 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(20) by Proposal 7650 (scshunt, G.), 3 June 2014 Amended(21) by Proposal 7690 (aranea), 24 September 2014 Amended(22) by Proposal 7739 (G.), 2 May 2015 Amended(23) by Proposal 7824 (aranea, ais523), 7 November 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2423/3 (Power=2) First Among Equals The Prime Minister is an office. The Prime Minister is elected by the players of Agora primarily on account of not being the other guy. The Prime Minister SHOULD ensure that Agoran affairs proceed smoothly. The holder of the office of Prime Minister's voting strength is increased by 1 on all Agoran decisions other than a elections of the Prime Minister. History: Created by Proposal 7633 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7816 (Alexis, o, aranea), 28 October 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7817 (aranea), 28 October 2016 Amended(3) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2451/2 (Power=1) Executive Orders Once per week and except as otherwise forbidden by this rule, the current Prime Minister CAN issue a Cabinet Order and perform the action(s) authorized by that Order. Each Cabinet Order is associated with an office. The current Prime Minister CANNOT issue more than one Cabinet Order associated with the same office more than once in the same month, nor can e issue a Cabinet Order associated with a vacant office. The available Cabinet Orders are: - Certiorari (Arbitor): The Prime Minister assigns emself as judge of a specified open case. - Dive (Referee): The Prime Minister issues a specified Card to a specified player. The reason for the card MAY be any grievance held by the Prime Minister, not necessarily a violation of the rules, against the person to whom the Card is issued. - Manifesto (Promotor): The Prime Minister distributes a specified proposal in the Proposal Pool. History: Created by Proposal 7764 (scshunt), 24 July 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7829 (Alexis), 7 November 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2463/0 (Power=1) Motion of No Confidence Any player can cause the office of Prime Minister to become vacant with 2 Agoran Consent by publishing a message with the character string "MOTION OF NO CONFIDENCE" in the subject line. History: Created by Proposal 7800 (Henri), 19 July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2154/49 (Power=2) Election Procedure A player CAN initiate an election for a specified elected office for which no election is already in progress a) by announcement, if e is the ADoP, if the office has been deputised for within the past two weeks, or if no election has been initiated for the office either since the last time a player won the game or within the past 90 days; b) with 4 Supporters, otherwise. After the election is initiated, any player CAN once initiate an Agoran decision to determine the new officeholder, and the ADoP SHALL do so in a timely fashion if no one else does first. For this decision, the valid options are the players, the vote collector is the ADoP, and the voting method is instant runoff. Upon the resolution of this decision, its outcome, if a player, is installed into office, and the election ends. History: Created by Proposal 5059 (Zefram, Goethe), 9 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5096 (Murphy; disi.), 25 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5108 (Zefram; disi.), 2 August 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5133 (Zefram), 13 August 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5224 (Murphy), 23 September 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5407 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 5452 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5491 (Murphy), 23 April 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5497 (Murphy; disi.), 23 April 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5499 (Goethe), 23 April 2008 Amended(11) by Proposal 5503 (root), 1 May 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5608 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5609 (Murphy), 29 July 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5683 (Wooble), 8 September 2008 Amended(15) by SLR ratification (comex), 24 September 2008 Amended(16) by Proposal 5730 (comex; disi.), 7 October 2008 Amended(17) by Proposal 5806 (Wooble; disi.), 30 October 2008 Amended(18) by Proposal 5797 (Taral), 3 November 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 5831 (Murphy), 6 November 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5998 (Sgeo), 7 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(21) by Proposal 6157 (Goethe, OscarMeyr, Wooble), 31 March 2009 Amended(22) by Proposal 6293 (Goethe), 19 May 2009 Amended(23) by Proposal 6296 (Murphy), 19 May 2009 Amended(24) by Proposal 6305 (Taral), 26 May 2009 Amended(25) by Proposal 6356 (Yally), 23 June 2009 Amended(26) by Proposal 6396 (Yally), 17 July 2009 Amended(27) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6411 (Yally), 30 July 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6651 (coppro), 10 March 2010 Amended(30) by Proposal 6665 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010 Amended(31) by Proposal 6696 (coppro), 25 April 2010 Amended(32) by Proposal 6845 (Tanner L. Swett), 3 October 2010 Amended(33) by Proposal 6969 (Murphy), 20 March 2011 Amended(34) by Proposal 6972 (G.), 30 March 2011 Amended(35) by Proposal 7425 (Walker, G., Murphy, omd), 27 May 2013 Amended(36) by Proposal 7465 (Walker), 17 June 2013 Amended(37) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013 Amended(38) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(39) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(40) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(41) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(42) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(43) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(44) by Proposal 7645 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(45) by Proposal 7654 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(46) by Proposal 7658 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(47) by Proposal 7684 (scshunt), 1 August 2014 Amended(48) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(49) by Proposal 7807 (aranea), 10 August 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2472/0 (Power=2) Office Incompatibilities Some pairs of office are incompatible: (a) Prime Minister and Speaker (b) Promotor and Assessor (c) Promotor and ADoP (d) Referee and Arbitor A player is Overpowered if e holds two offices which are incompatible with each other. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, a player CANNOT be installed into an office if doing so would make em Overpowered. If a player is Overpowered, any player CAN Demand Resignation from em by announcement, provided e has announced intent do to so between four and fourteen days earlier. The Overpowered player is then removed from all offices. History: Created by Proposal 7824 (aranea, ais523), 7 November 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Proposals ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2350/9 (Power=3) Proposals A proposal is a type of entity consisting of a body of text and other attributes. A player CAN create a proposal by announcement, specifying its text and optionally specifying any of the following attributes: * An associated title. * A list of co-authors (which must be persons other than the author). * An adoption index. Creating a proposal adds it to the Proposal Pool. Once a proposal is created, nether its text nor any of the aforementioned attributes can be changed. The author (syn. proposer) of a proposal is the person who submitted it. If a decision of whether to adopt a proposal was resolved as FAILED QUORUM in the last seven days, the Promotor CAN once add the proposal back to the Proposal Pool by announcement. The author of a proposal in the Proposal Pool CAN remove (syn. retract, withdraw) it from the Pool by announcement. The Promotor CAN remove a proposal from the Proposal Pool by announcement if it is not pending and has been added to the Pool more than 14 days ago. [CFJ 1647 (called 30 April 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with the heading "Proposal:" and a title can be sufficient to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal, but is not if it can be interpreted as quoting an existing proposal.] [CFJ 1717 (called 8 August 2007): Preceding a proposal-like text with the question "What is the title of this proposal?" can be sufficient to clearly indicate that it is intended to become a proposal.] History: Created by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011 Amended(1) by Proposal 7086 (G., omd), 23 July 2011 Amended(2) by Proposal 7216 (omd), 4 May 2012 Amended(3) by Proposal 7225 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(4) by Proposal 7241 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(5) by Proposal 7245 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(6) by Proposal 7250 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(7) by Proposal 7653 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(8) by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014 Amended(9) by Proposal 7736 (aranea), 2 May 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2445/5 (Power=1) How to Pend a Proposal Imminence is a switch, tracked by the Promotor, possessed by proposals in the Proposal Pool, whose value is either "pending" or "not pending" (default). Pending List Price is an integer switch, tracked by the Promotor, whose default value is 5. At the beginning of every month, the Pending List Price is set to the mean of the price paid for each proposal pended in the previous month, rounded down. If less than 2 proposals were pended in the previous month, the Pending List Price is set to its default. Pending Minimum Price is, at all times, 9/10ths of the Pending List Price, rounded down. Any player CAN pay Agora a specified amount, which is no less than the Pending Minimum Price, to flip a proposal's imminence to "pending" by announcement. If the specified amount is less than the Pending Minimum Price, then the attempt to pay is INEFFECTIVE, and the proposal's imminence is not flipped. History: Created by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7742 (ais523), 12 May 2015 Amended(2) by Proposal 7773 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(3) by Proposal 7807 (aranea), 10 August 2016 Amended(4) by Proposal 7818 (ais523), 31 October 2016 Amended(5) by Proposal 7838 (o, nichdel, G., Oerjan), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2443/0 (Power=3) Expediting Proposals A player CAN expedite a proposal whose adoption index is at most 1.5, in a message containing the character string "[Expedition]" in the subject line, (a) by specially deputising for the Promotor to distribute the proposal, if it has not been distributed; or (b) by announcement, otherwise. If, in an Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, the strength of AGAINST is zero, and the proposal was expedited at least 7 days earlier, then any player CAN specially deputise for the Assessor to resolve the decision. History: Created by Proposal 7713 (Warrigal), 9 November 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1607/43 (Power=3) Distribution The Promotor is an office; its holder is responsible for receiving and distributing proposals. Determining whether to adopt a proposal is an Agoran decision. For this decision, the vote collector is the Assessor, the adoption index is initially the adoption index of the proposal, or 1.0 if the proposal does not have one, and the text, author, and coauthors of the proposal are essential parameters. Initiating such a decision is known as distribution, and removes the proposal from the Proposal Pool. The Promotor CAN distribute a proposal which is in the Proposal Pool at any time. The Promotor SHALL NOT distribute proposals which are not pending. In a given Agoran week, the Promotor SHALL, as part of eir weekly duties, distribute all pending proposals. Distributed proposals have ID numbers, to be assigned by the Promotor. If there is a Proposal in the Pool that it would otherwise be IMPOSSIBLE for any player to distribute, then any player CAN distribute that Proposal Without 3 Objections. The Promotor's report includes a list of all proposals in the Proposal Pool, along with their text and attributes. This portion of a public document purporting to be a Promotor's report is self-ratifying. [CFJ 1546 (called 14 April 2005), CFJ 1669 (called 16 May 2007): If a proposal is purportedly distributed with a text that differs from the submitted text, this constitutes a legal distribution of the submitted proposal if and only if the difference does not affect the meaning of the proposal.] [CFJ 1655 (called 9 May 2007): Distributing a purported proposal whose text consists of the texts of two submitted proposals and separating matter from the message that submitted them both, if both submitted proposals have non-null effects, does not constitute a legal distribution of either of the submitted proposals.] [CFJ 1656 (called 9 May 2007): If the Promotor purports to distribute a proposal, but the distributed text does not match any proposal in the proposal pool, this constitutes the effective (albeit prohibited) distribution of a new proposal.] [CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor creates a new proposal by distribution, by accidentally mangling the text of a proposal in the pool, and the new proposal is very similar in meaning to the one on which it is based (with only inconsequential differences), then the author of the new proposal is the author of the proposal on which it is based.] [CFJ 1780 (called 4 November 2007): If the Promotor accidentally creates a new proposal by distribution, and the new proposal is seriously different from any proposal in the pool, then the new proposal has no author.] [CFJ 2733 (called 14 November 2009): This rule defines a separate method of distribution from the one defined in Rule 107.] History: Created by Proposal 2522, Mar. 10 1996 Amended(1) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996 Null-Amended(3) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(7) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4050 (t), Aug. 15 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 Amended(12) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(13) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(17) by Proposal 5457 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Amended(18) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(19) by Proposal 6001 (Goethe), 7 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(20) by Proposal 6313 (Goethe), 26 May 2009 Amended(21) by Proposal 6341 (G.), 11 June 2009 Amended(22) by Proposal 6394 (Goethe), 10 July 2009 Amended(23) by Proposal 6395 (coppro), 17 July 2009 Amended(24) by Proposal 6406 (C-walker), 7 August 2009 Amended(25) by Proposal 6500 (coppro; disi.), 26 September 2009 Amended(26) by Proposal 6531 (Walker), 23 October 2009 Amended(27) by Proposal 6541 (Murphy), 4 November 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6550 (Tiger; disi.), 13 November 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6793 (Wooble), 27 August 2010 Amended(30) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011 Amended(31) by Proposal 7033 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(32) by Proposal 7069 (Walker), 16 June 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011 Amended(34) by Proposal 7226 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(35) by Proposal 7239 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(36) by Proposal 7461 (Walker), 17 June 2013 Amended(37) by Proposal 7569 (omd, scshunt), 24 August 2013 Amended(38) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(39) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(40) by Proposal 7618 (omd), 24 January 2014 Amended(41) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(42) by Proposal 7728 (Tiger), 24 November 2014 Amended(43) by Proposal 7832 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2431/1 (Power=1) Proposal Competitions Any player CAN, with Agoran Consent, initiate a Proposal Competition with a specified Objective. Only one Competition may be in progress at a time. The Objective should be a specification of effects of a proposal, and SHOULD NOT depend on factors that could not be determined from the text of a proposal. During the Agoran Week following the initiation of a Proposal Competition, any player CAN specify that a Proposal e submits is a Competition Proposal for that Competition. Players are ENCOURAGED to describe how their Competition Proposals fulfill the Objective. The Promotor SHALL distribute all Competition Proposals for a given Competition in the same message. The Assessor SHALL resolve all the Agoran Decisions to adopt the Competition Proposals for a given Competition in the same message. Once all Agoran decisions to adopt Competition Proposals for a given Competition have been resolved, the Competition ends. History: Created by Proposal 7667 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Power changed from 3 to 1 by Proposal 7705 (omd), 3 November 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7705 (omd), 3 November 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Decisions ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2137/2 (Power=1) The Assessor The Assessor is an office; its holder is responsible for collecting votes and keeping track of related properties. [CFJs 1758-1759 (called 30 September 2007): If Assessorship changes hands, vote collection duties move with it.] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 693/15 (Power=3) Agoran Decisions 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: Initial Mutable Rule 205, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 693 (Wes), Nov. 12 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1564 (Steve), Apr. 28 1995 Infected and Amended(2) by Rule 1454, Sep. 14 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(3) by Rule 693, Sep. 28 1997, substantial Amended(4) by Proposal 3809 (General Chaos), Dec. 7 1998 Amended(5) by Proposal 3921 (Wes), Oct. 3 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 4040 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(10) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009 Amended(11) by Proposal 6441 (Murphy; disi.), 27 August 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 6452 (Murphy; disi.), 27 August 2009 Amended(13) by Proposal 6465 (coppro; disi.), 15 September 2009 Amended(14) by Proposal 6617 (Murphy; disi.), 4 February 2010 Amended(15) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 107/18 (Power=3) Initiating Agoran Decisions 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 clear indication of the set of valid votes. (c) The identity of the vote collector. (d) Any additional information defined by the rules as essential parameters. The publication of such a valid notice initiates the voting period for the decision. The voting period lasts for 7 days. The minimum voting period for a decision with at least two options is five days. The vote collector for a decision with less than two options CAN and SHALL end the voting period by announcement, if it has not ended already, and provided that e resolves the decision in the same message. The voting period for a decision cannot be set or changed to a duration longer than fourteen days. [CFJ 1650 (called 6 May 2007): The intent to initiate the decision and the information required in the notice need not be explicit.] [CFJ 1743 (called 18 September 2007): If the notice does not mention voter eligibility but the type of Agoran decision is clear and the rule defining the relevant type of Agoran decision fully determines the class of eligible voters, then the notice thereby implicitly describes the class of eligible voters.] [CFJ 1722 (called 15 August 2007): Information that is explicitly presented in the notice takes precedence over any information that would be implicit, even where the explicit information is inaccurate and the implicit information would have been accurate.] [CFJ 1651 (called 6 May 2007): If a R107 notice initiating an Agoran decision does not contain an explicit list of the eligible voters, and there is later a dispute (evidenced by submission of a CFJ) over which voters were eligible at that time, then the notice's description of the class of eligible voters was necessarily insufficient to enable public agreement on which persons are eligible.] [CFJ 1652 (called 6 May 2007): The set of eligible voters on an Agoran decision can change during its voting period.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 107, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1391, Jan. 24 1995 Amended(1) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 5413 (root), 26 January 2008 Amended(8) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(9) by Proposal 5455 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Amended(10) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(11) by Proposal 6157 (Goethe, OscarMeyr, Wooble), 31 March 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 6816 (G., Keba), 4 September 2010 Amended(13) by Proposal 6945 (Murphy, omd; disi.), 16 January 2011 Amended(14) by Proposal 6981 (Murphy, omd), 10 April 2011 Amended(15) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011 Amended(16) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013 Amended(17) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(18) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 208/11 (Power=3) Resolving Agoran Decisions The vote collector for an unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating the outcome. If it was required to be initiated, then e SHALL resolve it in a timely fashion 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 the outcome, as described elsewhere, and, if there was more than one valid option, provides a tally of the voters' valid ballots. 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. In general, changes to the gamestate due to the outcome of an Agoran decision take effect when the decision is resolved. [CFJ 1711 (called 1 August 2007): If a purported resolution notice refers via a References: header to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give revised totals, this does not qualify as including a vote tally.] [CFJ 1810 (called 28 November 2007): If a purported resolution notice refers via an approximate date header to a previous notice with an incomplete vote tally and lists additional votes but does not give revised totals, this does qualify as including a vote tally.] [CFJ 1822 (called 4 December 2007): If a purported resolution notice includes invalid votes in its tally of votes, this makes the notice invalid.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 208, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1401, Jan. 29 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(4) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5229 (root), 27 September 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5450 (Murphy), 27 February 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5453 (Murphy), 1 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 6746 (coppro; disi.), 1 July 2010 Amended(9) by Proposal 7259 (Murphy), 6 July 2012 Amended(10) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013 Retitled by Proposal 7753 (scshunt), 30 June 2015 Amended(11) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1950/32 (Power=3) Decisions with Adoption Indices Adoption index is an untracked switch possessed by Agoran decisions and proposals, whose value is either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9. Adoption index is secured with a power threshold of 2. Adoption index is an essential parameter of an Agoran decision if that decision has an adoption index. For any Agoran decision with an adoption index, the voting method is AI-majority. [CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): "AGAINT" is a variant spelling of "AGAINST", not a customary synonym for "FOR", despite its former private usage with the latter meaning.] History: Created by Proposal 4032 (t), Jul. 24 2000 Amended(1) by Proposal 4085 (Blob), Nov. 16 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 4221 (Steve), 10 October 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 Amended(4) by Proposal 4352 (OscarMeyr), 7 August 2002 Amended(5) by Proposal 4370 (OscarMeyr), 6 September 2002 Amended(6) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 Amended(7) by Proposal 4539 (Goethe), 16 November 2003 Amended(8) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(9) by Proposal 4624 (Goethe), 20 November 2004 Amended(10) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005 Amended(11) by Proposal 4685 (Quazie, Murphy), 18 April 2005 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(13) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(14) by Proposal 4972 (Goddess Eris), 23 May 2007 Amended(15) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5007 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5047 (root), 1 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 6961 (G.), 3 March 2011 Retitled and amended(22) by Proposal 7013 (omd), 23 April 2011 Amended(23) by Proposal 7083 (Walker), 4 July 2011 Amended(24) by Proposal 7216 (omd), 4 May 2012 Amended(25) by Proposal 7239 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(26) by Proposal 7274 (FKA441344), 14 August 2012 Amended(27) by Proposal 7296 (scshunt), 9 September 2012 Amended(28) by Proposal 7416 (omd), 12 May 2013 Amended(29) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(30) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(31) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(32) by Proposal 7832 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 879/32 (Power=2) Quorum Quorum for an Agoran Decision is equal to the number of players who voted on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, minus 3. [CFJ 1562 (called 3 May 2005): A cancelled vote on a Proposal does not count towards quorum.] [CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision changes as the set of eligible voters changes.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 201, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 879, Apr. 13 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Apr. 13 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1471, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1708, Sep. 4 1995 Infected and Amended(4) by Rule 1454, Jul. 27 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2786 (Steve), Jan. 15 1997, substantial Amended(6) by Proposal 3643 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(7) by Proposal 3777 (Blob), Aug. 3 1998 Amended(8) by Proposal 'A Separation of Powers' (Steve, Without Objection), Apr. 20 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(10) by Proposal 3956 (harvel), Dec. 28 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000 Amended(12) by Proposal 3980 (Steve), Mar. 1 2000 Amended(13) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000 Amended(14) by Proposal 4239 (Murphy), 29 January 2002 Amended(15) by Proposal 4276 (Steve), 28 March 2002 Amended(16) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(17) by Proposal 4282 (Goethe), 16 April 2002 Amended(18) by Proposal 4311 (root), 28 May 2002 Amended(19) by Proposal 4410 (Steve), 6 November 2002 Amended(20) by Proposal 4576 (root), 31 May 2004 Amended(21) by Proposal 4665 (Kolja), 9 April 2005 Amended(22) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(23) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 4997 (Zefram, Goddess Eris), 6 June 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5000 (Murphy), 12 June 2007 Amended(26) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(27) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 7317 (omd), 16 October 2012 Amended(29) by Proposal 7552 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(30) by Proposal 7612 (ais523), 11 January 2014 Amended(31) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(32) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Voting ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 683/23 (Power=3) Voting on Agoran Decisions An entity submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying the following conditions: (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the decision. (b) The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the initiation of the decision, a player. (c) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. (d) The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the voting method. (d) The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place the identified vote. (e) The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision. A valid ballot is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn. A player CAN withdraw a ballot by announcement during the voting period of the decision on which it was cast. To "change" one's vote is to retract eir previous ballot (if any), then submit a new one. [CFJ 1609 (called 13 January 2007): To "clearly identif[y] the matter to be decided" does not necessarily require specifying it in detail.] [CFJs 1852-1853 (called 23 December 2007): Claiming to submit more votes than ones voting limit on the decision does not constitute the making of a false statement.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 207, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 683 (Jeffrey S.), Nov. 10 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1473, Mar. 8 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1554, Apr. 17 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2590, May 1 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 3718 (Steve), Apr. 3 1998 Amended(7) by Proposal 3937 (Wes), Oct. 31 1999 Amended(8) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(9) by Proposal 3972 (Peekee), Feb. 14 2000 Amended(10) by Proposal 4190 (Steve), 18 July 2001 Amended(11) by Proposal 4699 (Sherlock), 18 April 2005 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4811 (Maud,Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(12) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(13) by Proposal 4964 (Murphy), 3 June 2007 Amended(14) by Proposal 5078 (Zefram), 18 July 2007 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(15) by Proposal 6378 (Murphy), 3 July 2009 Amended(16) by Proposal 7032 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(17) by Proposal 7077 (omd), 16 June 2011 Amended(18) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(19) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(20) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(21) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(22) by Proposal 7814 (o), 28 October 2016 Amended(23) by Decree (Alexis), 10 November 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2422/2 (Power=3) Voting Strength The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an integer between 0 and 5 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2 or greater. If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is 1. When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID. Finally, if theresult of the calculation is not an integer, it is rounded up, and then if it is outside the allowable range of values for voting strength, it is set to the the minimum value if it was less and the maximum value if it was more. History: Created by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7816 (Alexis, o, aranea), 28 October 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2127/9 (Power=3) Conditional Votes If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at the end of the voting period, and, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting period. If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast. Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that decision. Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites. [CFJ 2449 (called 14 April 2009): For an endorsement or denouncement, the identity of the voter in question is part of the condition.] History: Created by Proposal 4875 (Goethe), 1 December 2006 Amended(1) by Proposal 5427 (Murphy), 9 February 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5506 (Murphy; disi.), 10 May 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5746 (Murphy), 16 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6331 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6383 (Murphy), 3 July 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 7447 (omd), 10 June 2013 Amended(8) by Proposal 7447 (omd), 10 June 2013 Amended(9) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2168/7 (Power=1) Extending the voting period Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting period for that decision is instead increased to 14 days, except if it is already that length, provided this has not already happened for the decision in question. Upon such an occurrence, the vote collector for the decision SHALL issue a humiliating public reminder to the slackers who have not yet cast any votes on it despite being eligible, and CAN end its voting period by announcement (resolving it constitutes an implicit announcement that its voting period is first ended) if the result would no longer be FAILED QUORUM, or if the decision is whether to adopt a proposal and no voter (other than possibly the proposal's author) has voted FOR. History: Created by Proposal 5191 (root), 6 September 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5979 (Murphy), 25 November 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 6115 (Murphy), 1 March 2009 Amended(3) by Proposal 6294 (Yally), 19 May 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6328 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6329 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6504 (Murphy; disi.), 3 October 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 955/21 (Power=3) Determining the Will of Agora Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The strength of a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran decision. The following voting methods are defined: (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST. Let F be the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be the same for AGAINST, and AI be the adoption index of the decision. The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1 (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED. (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this purpose, a ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N distinct ballots expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if, for M > 1, all eir possible choices in the next M stages would result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need not specify the order of elimination. (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the options, and the outcome is whichever option received the highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome. The previous notwithstanding: - If there is more than one option, and the number of valid ballots is less than quorum, the outcome is instead FAILED QUORUM. - PRESENT is always a valid vote, with no effect on the outcome except counting towards quorum. - If there are no valid options, the outcome is null. The outcome of a decision is determined when it is resolved, and cannot change thereafter. [CFJs 1673-1675 (called 20 May 2007): Quorum for an Agoran decision is determined at the time the vote collector makes the calculations described in Rule 955.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 209, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 396 (KoJen), Aug. 23 1993 Amended by Proposal 658, Oct. 29 1993 Amended by Proposal 761, Dec. 8 1993 Amended by Rule 750, Dec. 8 1993 Amended by Proposal 955, Jul. 25 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Jul. 25 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1279, Oct. 24 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1531, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1723, Oct. 6 1995 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 3721 (Steve), Apr. 16 1998 Amended(5) by Proposal 3818 (Chuck), Dec. 21 1998 Amended(6) by Proposal 4263 (Steve), 4 March 2002 Amended(7) by Proposal 4302 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(8) by Proposal 4412 (Steve), 6 November 2002 Amended(9) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(10) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(11) by Proposal 5113 (Murphy, Maud), 2 August 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5418 (root), 2 February 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 5445 (Goethe, Murphy), 21 February 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 5783 (Murphy), 22 October 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 5948 (Murphy; disi.), 15 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Rules by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(16) by Proposal 6336 (coppro; disi.), 29 May 2009 Amended(17) by Proposal 6403 (coppro), 30 July 2009 Amended(18) by Proposal 7238 (omd), 10 June 2012 Amended(19) by Proposal 7772 (scshunt), 10 August 2015 Amended(20) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(21) by Proposal 7816 (Alexis, o, aranea), 28 October 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2034/8 (Power=3) Vote Protection and Cutoff for Challenges A public message purporting to resolve an Agoran decision constitutes self-ratifying claims that a) such a decision existed, b) it was resolved as indicated, and c) (if the indicated outcome was to adopt a proposal) such a proposal existed, was adopted, and took effect. History: Created by Proposal 4366 (Steve), 23 August 2002 Amended(1) by Proposal 4637 (Murphy), 19 February 2005 Amended(2) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(3) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 6139 (Murphy), 15 March 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6180 (Murphy; disi.), 7 April 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 7355 (ais523), 7 April 2013 Amended(8) by Proposal 7585 (omd), 24 August 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Interpretations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 991/17 (Power=2) Calls for Judgement Any person (the initiator) can initiate a Call for Judgement (CFJ, syn. Judicial Case) by announcement, specifying a statement to be inquired into. E may optionally bar one person from the case. At any time, each CFJ is either open (default), suspended, or assigned exactly one judgement. The Arbitor is an office, responsible for the administration of justice in a manner that is fair for emself, if not for the rest of Agora. When a CFJ has no judge assigned, the Arbitor CAN assign any player to be its judge by announcement, and SHALL do so within a week. The players eligible to be assigned as judge are all players except the initiator and the person barred (if any). The Arbitor SHALL assign judges over time such that all interested players have reasonably equal opportunities to judge. If a CFJ has no judge assigned, then any player eligible to judge that CFJ CAN assign it to emself Without 3 Objections. [CFJs 1692-1693 (called 20 June 2007): A CFJ can be unambiguously referenced by using the customarily-assigned sequence numbers, even if the number was not assigned in the public forum, provided that those involved accept it as unambiguous at the time.] [CFJ 1355 (called 28 April 2002): Titles for CFJs are unregulated, so it is possible for a title to be assigned to a CFJ informally.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 213, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 407 (Alexx), Sep. 3 1993 Amended by Proposal 991, ca. Aug. 12 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Aug. 12 1994 Infected and amended(1) by Rule 1454, Oct. 23 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2669, Sep. 19 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 4170 (Elysion), 26 June 2001 Amended(5) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(6) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(7) by Proposal 5015 (Zefram), 24 June 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(8) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5317 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5464 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(12) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011 Retitled and amended(13) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014 Amended(14) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(15) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(16) by Proposal 7777 (omd, G.), 14 August 2015 Amended(17) by Proposal 7803 (G.), 31 July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 591/42 (Power=1.7) Delivering Judgements When a CFJ is open and assigned to a judge, that judge CAN assign a valid judgement to it by announcement, and SHALL do so in a timely fashion after this becomes possible. If e does not, the Arbitor CAN remove em from being the judge of that case by announcement. The valid judgements, based on the facts of the case at the time the CFJ was initiated, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS. DISMISS is appropriate if the statement is malformed, undecidable, irrelevant to the game, if insufficient information exists to make a judgement with reasonable effort, or the statement is otherwise not able to be answered TRUE or FALSE. [CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): A question cannot generally take the place of a statement in initiating an inquiry case.] [CFJ 1903 (called 6 February 2008): The question-statement equivalence established by this rule applies only for the purposes of the subject of an inquiry case, not for acting by announcement.] [CFJ 1671 (called 17 May 2007): The truth or falsity of a statement can be determined as of the initiation of a CFJ even if public knowledge at the time of initiation was not sufficient to determine it.] [CFJ 1482 (called 10 February 2004): If the truth of a CFJ statement logically depends on the truth of statements of a previously-called CFJ which has not yet been judged, the judge is entitled to treat this as a situation of insufficient information being available.] [CFJ 1744 (called 18 September 2007): It is not the job of the judge to hunt down or request the information that would be required to render a substantive judgement.] [CFJ 1771 (called 28 October 2007): If an inquiry case revolves around the interpretation of a specific message, and the initiator does not provide a reasonable reference to that message , the judge is entitled to treat this as a situation of insufficient information being available.] [CFJ 1732 (called 23 August 2007): If a particular player holds a particular office, and an inquiry case on a statement that that player holds that office is judged FALSE, that player still holds that office.] [CFJ 2281 (called 19 November 2008): For the purposes of determining the validity of an inquiry case, the term "statement" should be interpreted loosely.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 216, Jun. 30 1993 Amended by Proposal 409 (Alexx), Aug. 26 1993 Amended by Proposal 591 (KoJen), Oct. 21 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1320, Nov. 21 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial (unattributed) Amended(7) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(8) by Proposal 3463 (Harlequin), Apr. 17 1997, substantial Infected and Amended(9) by Rule 1454, May 7 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(10) by Rule 591, May 21 1997, substantial Amended(11) by Proposal 3629 (General Chaos), Dec. 29 1997, substantial Amended(12) by Proposal 3645 (elJefe), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(13) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(15) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(16) by Proposal 3998 (harvel), May 2 2000 Amended(17) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(18) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(19) by Proposal 5068 (Zefram), 11 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5296 (root), 28 November 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5360 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5371 (Zefram), 20 December 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5425 (Murphy), 6 February 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 5470 (Murphy), 24 March 2008 Amended(26) by Proposal 5476 (Murphy; disi.), 27 March 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5964 (Murphy), 18 November 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(29) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(30) by Proposal 6044 (Goethe), 13 January 2009 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(31) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009 Amended(32) by Proposal 6931 (omd), 2 January 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7022 (Walker, Murphy, omd), 5 May 2011 Amended(34) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(35) by Proposal 7078 (omd), 16 June 2011 Amended(36) by Proposal 7266 (omd), 25 July 2012 Amended(37) by Proposal 7293 (Murphy), 9 September 2012 Amended(38) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Retitled and amended(39) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014 Amended(40) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(41) by Proposal 7694 (omd), 23 October 2014 Amended(42) by Proposal 7776 (omd), 14 August 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 217/11 (Power=3) Interpreting the Rules 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. Definitions and prescriptions in the rules are only to be applied using direct, forward reasoning; in particular, an absurdity that can be concluded from the assumption that a statement about rule-defined concepts is false does not constitute proof that it is true. Definitions in lower-powered Rules do not overrule common-sense interpretations or common definitions of terms in higher-powered rules. Rules to the contrary notwithstanding, any rule change that would (1) prevent a person from initiating a formal process to resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved; or (2) prevent a person from causing formal reconsideration of any judicial determination that e should be punished, is wholly void and without effect. [CFJ 1439 (called 20 February 2003): A difference in language qualifies as a difference in dialect; it is possible to take game actions by messages in languages other than English.] [CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): If a message is in a language other than English, and its intended audience does not understand the language, this constitutes gross unclarity that makes the message ineffective.] [CFJ 712: Referring to a Player by a method other than eir name or nickname is acceptable, as long as it is unambiguous.] [CFJ 1861 (called 8 January 2008): A player's legal name (legal in eir country of residence) is not necessarily an acceptable way to refer to em.] [CFJ 1782 (called 4 November 2007): Referring to a player by the name of an office that e holds suffices to identify em uniquely as a person, if there is no doubt regarding who holds that office.] [CFJ 1460 (called 4 April 2003): Extremely complex synonyms, requiring extensive effort to interpret correctly, can constitute a sufficient degree of unclarity as to render the message ineffective.] [CFJ 1840 (called 20 December 2007): A proper noun that has not been explicitly defined does not adequately refer to any entity, and is not implicitly defined by the context in which it is used.] [CFJ 1580 (called 12 January 2006): Base64 encoding of (part of) a message, other than in the context of MIME with appropriate headers, can render a message ineffective for unclarity, because the decoding step requires unreasonable effort within the meaning of CFJ 1460.] [CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): HTML encoding (including numerical character entity encoding) does not render a message ineffective for unclarity if a suitable MIME type is indicated by a header.] [CFJ 1741 (called 11 September 2007): An email message does not need the RFC-required "MIME-Version:" header in order for it to be interpreted in the MIME way.] [CFJ 1536 (called 13 March 2005): The phrase "AOL!" is not a sufficiently clear synonym for "Me too!".] [CFJ 1770 (called 23 October 2007): A contract can redefine a rule-defined term in its own way, and the contract's definition will then apply in situations governed by the contract.] [CFJ 1885 (called 26 January 2008): A word or phrase can acquire a meaning by custom, provided that it is a reasonable meaning and does not unreasonably change the meaning of phrases that already have a meaning.] [CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Mentioning a URI, without surrounding text stating its significance, does not incorporate anything identified by that URI into the message that mentions the URI.] [CFJ 1831 (called 10 December 2007): Character sequences within a URI by default have no significance other than their functional role as part of the URI.] [CFJ 2258 (called 6 November 2008): Changes in whitespace are also inconsequential.] [CFJ 1139: Interpretations [judgements at the time of CFJ 1139] need not necessarily accord with the reasoning and arguments of Judges or Justices given in past CFJs.] History: Initial Mutable Rule 217, Jun. 30 1993 Amended(1) by Proposal 1635, Jul. 25 1995 Infected and amended(2) by Rule 1454, Aug. 7 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2507, Mar. 3 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(5) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Retitled by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5105 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(7) by Proposal 7351 (G., ais523, Machiavelli), 27 March 2013 Amended(8) by Proposal 7520 (omd), 19 July 2013 Amended(9) by Proposal 7584 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(10) by Proposal 7614 (G.), 13 January 2014 Amended(11) by Proposal 7662 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2152/7 (Power=3) Mother, May I? The following terms are defined. These definitions are used when a rule includes a term in all caps, and provide guidance in determining the ordinary-language meaning of a term when a rule includes a term otherwise. Earlier definitions take precedence over later ones. If a rule specifies one or more persons in connection with a term, then the term applies only to the specified person(s). 1. CANNOT, IMPOSSIBLE, INEFFECTIVE, INVALID: Attempts to perform the described action are unsuccessful. 2. MUST NOT, MAY NOT, SHALL NOT, ILLEGAL, PROHIBITED: Performing the described action violates the rule in question. 3. NEED NOT, OPTIONAL: Failing to perform the described action does not violate the rules. 4. SHOULD NOT, DISCOURAGED, DEPRECATED: Before performing the described action, the full implications of performing it should be understood and carefully weighed. 5. CAN: Attempts to perform the described action are successful. 6. MAY: Performing the described action does not violate the rules. 7. MUST, SHALL, REQUIRED, MANDATORY: Failing to perform the described action violates the rule in question. 8. SHOULD, ENCOURAGED, RECOMMENDED: Before failing to perform the described action, the full implications of failing to perform it should (in the ordinary-language sense) be understood and carefully weighed. [CFJ 1132: A Player failing to perform a duty required by the Rules within a reasonable time may be in violation of the Rules, even if the Rules do not provide a time limit for the performance of that duty.] [CFJ 1488 (called 11 February 2004): Engineering a situation in which other players are unable to follow a particular rule is not in itself a violation of that rule.] [CFJ 2395 (called 1 March 2009): Even without this being explicitly specified in the rules, it is possible for a non-player to violate a rule by missing a deadline.] [CFJ 1990 (called 7 June 2008): "Allowed" may refer to either possibility or permissibility depending on context.] [CFJs 2120-2121 (called 4 August 2008): A requirement of the form 'within <time limit>, a player SHALL <action> by announcement' means that the player CAN perform the action, and SHALL do so within the time limit.] [CFJ 2230 (called 16 October 2008): In a statement of the form "an action that X may take", 'may' generally means 'might', i.e. CAN.] [CFJ 2282 (called 19 November 2008): To state that an entity "MUST" have certain properties refers to possibility, not legality.] [CFJ 2414 (called 14 March 2009): A rule of the form "X SHOULD be interpreted as Y" does not allow players to bypass the interpretation by failing to perform the described action.] History: Created by Proposal 5053 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5054 (Murphy), 5 July 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5189 (Levi), 3 September 2007 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5247 (AFO), 14 October 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5353 (Murphy; disi.), 16 December 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5354 (Murphy), 16 December 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6983 (Murphy), 10 April 2011 Amended(7) by Proposal 7613 (Arufonsu), 11 January 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 911/51 (Power=1.7) Motions and Moots If a CFJ (1) has a judgement that has been in effect for less than seven days and not been appealed, and (2) has not had a Motion to Reconsider filed for it at any time while it has been assigned to its current judge, then any Player CAN file a Motion to Reconsider the case with 2 Support, or by announcement if e is that case's judge. When a Motion to Reconsider is so filed, the case is rendered open again. If a CFJ has a judgement assigned, a player CAN enter that judgement into Moot with two support. When this occurs, the CFJ is suspended, and the Arbitor is once authorized to initiate the Agoran decision to determine public confidence in the judgement, which e SHALL do in a timely fashion. For this decision, the vote collector is the Arbitor and the valid options are AFFIRM, REMAND, and REMIT. When the decision is resolved, the effect depends on the outcome: - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and cannot be entered into Moot again. - REMAND: The case becomes open again. - REMIT: The case becomes open again, and the current judge is recused. The Arbitor SHALL NOT assign em to the case again unless no other eligible judges have displayed interest in judging. [CFJ 1597 (called 22 December 2006): It is possible to appeal a judgement even if it is not certain that the judgement exists.] [CFJ 1800 (called 18 November 2007): An announcement of the form "I call for the appeal of <judgement>" has the effect of initiating the Agoran decision on whether to approve appealing the cited judgement.] History: Created by Proposal 384 (Alexx), Aug. 16 1993 Amended by Proposal 690 (Ronald Kunne), Nov. 11 1993 Amended by Proposal 911, May 4 1994 Amended by Rule 750, May 4 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1345, Nov. 29 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1487, Mar. 15 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1511, Mar. 24 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2457, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2553, Mar. 22 1996 Amended(6) by Proposal 2685, Oct. 3 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 3532 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(8) by Proposal 3559 (Murphy), Oct. 24 1997, substantial Amended(9) by Proposal 4213 (Taral), 29 September 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(11) by Proposal 4298 (Murphy), 17 May 2002 Amended(12) by Proposal 4579 (Murphy), 15 June 2004 Amended(13) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 Amended(14) by Proposal 4867 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(15) by Proposal 5051 (Zefram), 5 July 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.7 by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5359 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 5361 (Goethe), 20 December 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5436 (Murphy), 13 February 2008 Amended(20) by Proposal 5466 (Murphy), 13 March 2008 Amended(21) by Proposal 5610 (Murphy, Goethe), 29 July 2008 Amended(22) by Proposal 5726 (Murphy), 7 October 2008 Amended(23) by Proposal 6002 (Murphy), 7 December 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 6014 (Goethe), 18 December 2008 Amended(25) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Assigned to Committee on the Judiciary by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(26) by Proposal 6211 (comex), 27 April 2009 Amended(27) by Proposal 6229 (Murphy), 4 May 2009 Amended(28) by Proposal 6327 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6334 (Goethe, ais523), 29 May 2009 Amended(30) by Proposal 6334 (Goethe, ais523), 29 May 2009 Amended(31) by Proposal 6376 (Murphy), 23 June 2009 Amended(32) by Proposal 6510 (Murphy), 3 October 2009 Amended(33) by Proposal 6542 (Murphy), 7 November 2009 Amended(34) twice by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009 Amended(35) by Proposal 6605 (Murphy), 19 January 2010 Amended(36) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010 Amended(37) by Proposal 6705 (comex), 25 April 2010 Amended(38) by Proposal 6726 (coppro), 22 May 2010 Amended(39) by Proposal 6811 (Murphy), 4 September 2010 Amended(40) by Proposal 6969 (Murphy), 20 March 2011 Amended(41) by Proposal 7038 (scshunt), 16 May 2011 Amended(42) by Proposal 7042 (Murphy; disi.), 16 May 2011 Amended(43) by Proposal 7049 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(44) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(45) by Proposal 7072 (woggle), 16 June 2011 Amended(46) by Proposal 7078 (omd), 16 June 2011 Amended(47) by Proposal 7152 (Murphy), 25 January 2012 Retitled and amended(48) by Proposal 7616 (G.), 16 January 2014 Amended(49) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(50) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(51) by Proposal 7777 (omd, G.), 14 August 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2175/9 (Power=1) Judicial Retraction and Excess A new case is a judicial case that has not had any judge assigned to it. The initiator of a new case CAN retract it by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. An excess case is a new case whose initiator previously initiated five or more cases during the same week as that case. A person SHALL NOT initiate an excess case. The Arbitor CAN refuse an excess case by announcement, thus causing it to cease to be a judicial case. When e does so, e fulfills any obligations with regards to that case. History: Created by Proposal 5284 (root, pikhq), 7 November 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5301 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5384 (Murphy), 1 January 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5768 (Murphy), 17 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6024 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 6445 (coppro; disi.), 27 August 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6944 (omd; disi.), 16 January 2011 Amended(7) by Proposal 7623 (G.), 23 February 2014 Amended(8) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(9) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1023/34 (Power=2) Common Definitions The following terms are defined: (a) The phrase "in a timely fashion" means "within 7 days". This time period is set when the requirement is created (i.e. X days before the limit ends). A requirement to perform an action at an exact instant (e.g. "when X, Y SHALL Z"), but not "in the same message", is instead interpreted as a requirement to perform that action in a timely fashion after that instant. (b) Agoran epochs: (1) Agoran days begin at midnight UTC. (2) Agoran weeks begin at midnight UTC on Monday. (3) Agoran months begin at midnight UTC on the first day of each Gregorian month. (4) Agoran quarters begin when the Agoran months of January, April, July, and October begin. (5) Agoran years begin when the Agoran month of January begins. (5) A pivot is either the instant at which Agora Nomic began (June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200) or an instant at which at least one person won the game. When used as a period of time, a "Round" (historical syn: "game") is the period of time between a pivot and the next pivot. These definitions do not apply to relative durations (e.g. "within <number> days after <event>"). (c) If a regulated value, or the value of a conditional, or a value otherwise required to determine the outcome of a regulated action, CANNOT be reasonably determined (without circularity or paradox) from information reasonably available, or if it alternates instantaneously and indefinitely between values, then the value is considered to be Indeterminate, otherwise it is Determinate. (d) Two points in time are within a month of each other if: (1) they occur in the same Agoran month; (2) they occur in two consecutive Agoran months, and the later of the two occurs in an earlier day in the month than the earlier one; (3) they occur in two consecutive Agoran months on the same day of the month, and the later of the two occurs at the same or earlier time of day. History: Created by Proposal 805, ca. Jan. or Feb. 1994 Amended by Proposal 907, ca. Apr. or May 1994 Amended by Rule 750, ca. Apr. or May 1994 Amended by Proposal 1023, Sep. 5 1994 Amended by Rule 750, Sep. 5 1994 Amended(1) by Proposal 1413, Feb. 1 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 1434, Feb. 14 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 1682, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 1727, Oct. 6 1995 Amended(5) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(6) by Proposal 2489, Feb. 16 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2567, Apr. 12 1996 Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 2602, May 26 1996 Amended(8) by Proposal 2629, Jul. 4 1996 Amended(9) by Proposal 2770 (Steve), Dec. 19 1996 Amended(10) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3823 (Oerjan), Jan. 21 1999 Amended(12) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(13) by Proposal 3950 (harvel), Dec. 8 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 4004 (Steve), May 8 2000 Amended(15) by Proposal 4278 (harvel), 3 April 2002 Amended(16) by Proposal 4406 (Murphy), 30 October 2002 Amended(17) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(18) by Proposal 4938 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(19) by Proposal 5005 (root), 18 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5102 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5081 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5408 (root), 22 January 2008 Amended(24) by Proposal 6046 (comex), 13 January 2009 Amended(25) by Proposal 6321 (Murphy; disi.), 26 May 2009 Amended(26) by Proposal 6535 (Murphy), 4 November 2009 Amended(27) by Proposal 6660 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010 Amended(28) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011 Amended(29) by Proposal 7289 (G.), 9 September 2012 Amended(30) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013 Amended(31) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013 Amended(32) by Proposal 7641 (scshunt), 12 May 2014 Amended(33) by Proposal 7686 (omd), 7 August 2014 Amended(34) by Proposal 7760 (G.), 19 July 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1769/13 (Power=3) Holidays The period each year from midnight GMT on the morning of 24 December to the beginning of the first Agoran week to begin after 2 January is a Holiday. The week that contains the beginning of Agora's Birthday, together with the following week, is a Holiday. If a person breaks a Rule by missing a deadline that occurs during a Holiday, punishment is generally not appropriate. [CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The registration of a player is an event for the purposes of Rule 1769.] [CFJ 1434 (called 24 January 2003): The expiration of a rule-defined period is an event for the purposes of Rule 1769.] [CFJ 1480 (called 5 January 2004): An automatic event specified to occur at regular calendar intervals, for example quarterly, happens at its specified time even if that is during a holiday.] History: Created by Proposal 3679 (General Chaos), Jan. 30 1998 Amended(1) by Proposal 4036 (Oerjan), Aug. 7 2000 Amended(2) by Proposal 01-003 (Steve), Feb. 2 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(4) by Proposal 5077 (Murphy), 18 July 2007 Amended(5) by Proposal 5086 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(6) by Proposal 5484 (Murphy; disi.), 2 April 2008 Amended(7) by Proposal 5535 (Murphy), 7 June 2008 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 5701 (ais523), 1 October 2008 Amended(7.1) by Proposal 6607 (coppro; disi.), 1 February 2010 Amended(7.2) by SLR ratification (Proposal 6806; coppro), 27 August 2010 Amended(8) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(9) by Proposal 7150 (Murphy), 25 January 2012 Amended(10) by Proposal 7151 (Murphy), 25 January 2012 Amended(11) by Proposal 7262 (omd), 7 July 2012 Amended(12) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 Amended(13) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2448/3 (Power=1) Eras An Era is a period of time that has a defined start, either has a defined end or is still ongoing, and has been initiated as specified by this rule. Upon the initiation of an Era, each existing Ephemeral Rule (in the order they were created) is repealed, unless the initiation specifies otherwise. A player CAN initiate a new Era with Agoran Consent. History: Created by Proposal 7733 (Murphy), 14 April 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7759 (G.), 19 July 2015 Amended(2) by Proposal 7766 (scshunt), 24 July 2015 Amended(3) by Proposal 7837 (ais523), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Violations ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2486/0 (Power=3.14) The Royal Parade _ _\ /_ >_X_< .---._ /_\ _.---. /`.---._`{/ \}`_.---.`\ | / ___`{\_/}`___ \ | \ \."`* `"{_}"` *`"./ / \ \ )\ _\ /_ /( / / \ *<()( >_X_< )()>* / |._)/._./_\._.\(_.| jgs |() () () () () ()| <<o>><<o>><o>><<o>> `"""""""""""""""""""` IN CELEBRATION of Alexis being crowned Princess of Agora, without prejudice to Any before or since who may come to hold a Title whether Patent or otherwise; IT IS HEREBY PROCLAIMED that a Royal Parade be established, imbued in this very Rule, which shall travel around Agora to Rules of import; AND THEREFORE, the Rulekeepor SHOULD place this Rule near recently-amended rules of high Power; AND FURTHERMORE, additions to this Parade are most welcome when Events suiting the honour should occur. History: Created by Proposal 7839 (o, Alexis), 17 January 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2426/5 (Power=2) Cards A Card is a recognition of a specific violation of the rules or other manner of infraction that is awarded to the violator in order to draw attention to eir disregard for the rule of law and, depending on the type of Card, to impose a penalty. Cards CANNOT be issued except by players by announcement. Any attempt to issue a Card, or any intent for a dependent action to issue a Card, is INEFFECTIVE if it does not include the following information: - The type of Card being issued, - The person to whom the Card is being issued (the bad sport), and - The specific action, inaction of the bad sport giving rise to the Card (the reason). Issuing Cards is secured with power threshold 1.7. The types of Card are defined by the rules. A type of Card may have a defined set of circumstances for which it is appropriate, as well as a penalty which takes effect when a Card of that type is issued. Unless otherwise specified by the rule defining a type of Card, that Card type's penalty and circumstances for which it is appropriate are secured at the power threshold of that rule. A person SHALL NOT issue a Card unless: - the reason is appropriate for the type of Card being issued; - there has not already been a Card issued for that reason; and - the reason occurred within the 14 days preceding the issuance of the Card or, when the Card arises out of any manner of official proceeding, the initiation of that proceeding. History: Created by Proposal 7639 (omd), 1 May 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7696 (omd), 23 October 2014 Amended(2) by Proposal 7708 (Murphy), 3 November 2014 Amended(3) by Proposal 7720 (omd), 9 November 2014 Amended(4) by Proposal 7729 (Tiger), 24 November 2014 Power changed to 2 and Amended(5) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2477/1 (Power=1) The Referee The Referee is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of and adjudicating wrongdoing. The Referee's weekly report includes a list of all Cards issued within the past 90 days and the reasons therefor, as well as a list of all penalties due to Cards that are still in effect. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 Amended(1) by self-amendment as per R2477/0, 22 Apr 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2478/0 (Power=1.7) Vigilante Justice A player CAN by announcement, but subject to the provisions of this rule, Point eir Finger at a player, citing an alleged violation of the rules by that player. When a player Points a Finger, the investigator SHALL investigate the allegation and, in a timely fashion, SHALL conclude the investigation by: - issuing a Card to the pointed-at player by announcement whose reason is rooted in the allegation; - if e believes that no rules violation occurred or that it would be ILLEGAL to issue a Card for it, announcing the Finger Pointing to be Shenanigans. The Referee is by default the investigator for all Finger Pointing. When a Finger, other than the Arbitor's, is Pointed over an allegation related to the official duties or powers of the Referee, then the Arbitor CAN, by announcement, take over the investigation and thereby become the investigator. A player CANNOT point a finger more than twice per Agoran week, or more than once per Agoran week at the same player. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2479/0 (Power=1.7) Official Justice The Referee CAN, subject to the provisions of this rule, impose Summary Judgment on a player by issuing a card to em by announcement. The Referee CANNOT Point eir Finger or impose Summary Judgment more than five total times per week, or more than twice per week at or on the same player. As part of the Referee's weekly duties, e SHALL either impose Summary Judgment on a player or truthfully announce that e believes that there are no rules violations in the preceding Agoran week for which a Card has not already been issued. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2474/0 (Power=0.5) Green Cards A Green Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for minor, accidental, and/or inconsequential infraction. A Green Card is also appropriate for any infraction for which no other type of Card is appropriate. When a person is issued a Green Card, they are ENCOURAGED to travel to the United States. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2427/1 (Power=2) Yellow Cards A Yellow Card is a type of Card that is appropriate either for infractions that have a significant, though small, impact on gameplay or for infractions for which a Green Card has already been issued. When a Yellow Card is issued, the bad sport SHOULD publish a formal apology of at least 200 words explaining eir error, shame, remorse, and ardent desire for self-improvement. A player issuing a Yellow Card MAY, when doing so, additionally specify up to 10 words to be included in the apology. Until e publishes such an apology, as a penalty, the bad sport's voting strength on all Agoran decisions initiated within 30 days of the Card's issuance is set to 0 after modifiers. History: Created by Proposal 7639 (omd), 1 May 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2475/0 (Power=2) Red Cards A Red Card is a type of Card that is appropriate for serious and deliberate violations of the rules. A Red Card is also appropriate for a person who appears to be part of an attempt in bad faith to swarm Agora and outpower the regular players in voting strength. When a Red Card is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any player CAN once, with 2 Support, Throw the Book at the bad sport. When the Book is Thrown at the bad sport, eir voting strength on all Agoran decisions initiated during the first Agoran week which begins at least four days after the issuance of the Card is reduced by 2. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2476/0 (Power=1) Pink Slips A Pink Slip is a type of Card that is appropriate for abuses of official power for personal gain. A Pink Slip CANNOT be issued unless the reason indicates the specific office or offices whose power was abused. When a Pink Slip is issued, as a penalty, within the next 7 days, any player CAN, with 2 Support, become the holder of one or more of those offices still held by the bad sport. History: Created by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2450/0 (Power=1.7) Pledges Breaking a publicly-made pledge is a cardable offense. History: Created by Proposal 7761 (G.), 19 July 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2471/0 (Power=1) No Faking A person SHALL NOT attempt to perform an action which e knows is IMPOSSIBLE so as to deceive others. History: Created by Proposal 7822 (Alexis), 7 November 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1789/9 (Power=2) Cantus Cygneus Whenever a Player feels that e has been treated so egregiously by the Agoran community that e can no longer abide to be a part of it, e may submit a document to the Registrar, clearly labeled a Cantus Cygneus, detailing eir grievances and expressing eir reproach for those who e feels have treated em so badly. In a timely fashion after receiving a Cantus Cygneus, the Registrar shall publish this document along with a Writ of Fugiendae Agorae Grandissima Exprobratione, commanding the Player to be deregistered. The Registrar shall note the method of deregistration for that Player in subsequent Registrar Reports. The Player is deregistered as of the posting of the Writ, and the notation in the Registrar's Report will ensure that, henceforth, all may know said Player deregistered in a Writ of FAGE. [CFJ 1594 (called 16 December 2006): Players can be deregistered due to this rule even if there is no Registrar.] [CFJ 2358 (called 26 January 2009): A document which is labeled as a Cantus Cygneus but does not actually detail grievances, etc. is not a Cantus Cygneus.] History: Created by Proposal 3705 (Crito), Mar. 9 1998 Amended(1) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001 Amended(2) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(3) by Proposal 4825 (Maud), 17 July 2005 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 5780 (comex, ehird), 22 October 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 5815 (Pavitra, Murphy), 1 November 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5991 (Elysion), 7 December 2008 Amended(6) by Proposal 6099 (Pavitra), 22 February 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 6338 (Murphy), 29 May 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013 Amended(9) by Proposal 7646 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Rulesets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1051/18 (Power=1) The Rulekeepor 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: ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1735, Oct. 15 1995 Amended(2) by Proposal 2042, Dec. 11 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2048, Dec. 19 1995 Amended(4) by Proposal 2662, Sep. 12 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2696, Oct. 10 1996 Null-Amended(6) by Proposal 2710, Oct. 12 1996 Amended(7) by Proposal 2741 (Zefram), Nov. 7 1996, substantial Infected and Amended(8) by Rule 1454, Nov. 27 1996, substantial (unattributed) Amended(9) by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan. 15 1997, substantial Amended(10) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(11) by Proposal 3675 (Michael), Jan. 30 1998 Amended(12) by Proposal 3827 (Kolja A.), Feb. 4 1999 Amended(13) by Proposal 3871 (Peekee), Jun. 2 1999 Amended(14) by Proposal 3882 (harvel), Jul. 21 1999 Amended(15) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(16) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(17) by Proposal 4250 (harvel), 19 February 2002 Amended(18) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1681/20 (Power=1) The Logical Rulesets The Short Logical Ruleset (SLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this format, each rule is assigned to a category, and the rules are grouped according to their category. Rules are assigned to, ordered within, or moved between categories, and categories are added, changed, or empty categories removed, as the Rulekeepor sees fit. The listing of each rule in the SLR must include the rule's ID number, revision number, power, title, and text. The Rulekeepor is strongly DISCOURAGED from including any additional information in the SLR, except that which increases the readability of the SLR. The Full Logical Ruleset (FLR) is a format of the ruleset. In this format, rules are assigned to the same category and presented in the same order as in the SLR. The FLR must contain all the information required to be in the SLR, and any historical annotations which the Rulekeepor is required to record. The Rulekeepor SHOULD also include any other information which e feels may be helpful in the use of the ruleset in the FLR. Whenever a rule is changed in any way, the Rulekeepor SHALL record a historical annotation to the rule indicating: a) The type of change. b) The date on which the change took effect. c) The mechanism that specified the change. d) If the rule was changed due to a proposal, then that proposal's ID number, author, and co-author(s) (if any). History: Created by Proposal 2783 (Chuck), Jan 15 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3500 (Crito), Jun. 3 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 3624 (Chuck), Dec. 29 1997 Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3902 (Murphy), Sep. 6 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(6) by Proposal 4811 (Maud, Goethe), 20 June 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4841 (Goethe), 27 October 2005 Amended(8) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(9) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5006 (Zefram), 18 June 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5110 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5334 (Murphy), 5 December 2007 Amended(13) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008 Amended(14) by Proposal 6019 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(15) by Proposal 6026 (Murphy), 22 December 2008 Amended(16) by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(17) by Proposal 6124 (ehird), 15 March 2009 Amended(18) by Proposal 6662 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010 Amended(19) by Proposal 7599 (Walker), 14 September 2013 Amended(20) by Proposal 7604 (G.), 13 December 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2327/1 (Power=1) Read the Ruleset Week The first Agoran week each year which falls entirely in February is Read the Ruleset Week. Agorans are encouraged to read the ruleset during Read the Ruleset Week. History: Created by Proposal 6973 (Murphy), 30 March 2011 Amended(1) by Proposal 6995 (omd, harvel), 10 April 2011 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2429/1 (Power=1) Bleach Replacing a non-zero amount of whitespace with a different non-zero amount of whitespace is generally insignificant, except for paragraph breaks. History: Created by Proposal 7665 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7709 (Murphy), 3 November 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2430/1 (Power=3) Cleanup Time The Rulekeepor CAN, without objection, cause this rule to amend any specified rule by: a) Changing the capitalization of a word, except to or from all caps. b) Changing visual formatting (such as the layout and bulleting of a list). c) Correcting formatting inconsistencies (such as doubled or skipped items in a list). Such a change SHALL NOT be made if it would plausibly affect the interpretation of a rule. History: Created by Proposal 7665 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7686 (omd), 7 August 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Recordkeeping ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2143/24 (Power=1) Official Reports and Duties For each person: a) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each week. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that person's weekly report, then e SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of eir weekly duties. b) If any task is defined by the rules as part of that person's monthly duties, then e SHALL perform it at least once each month. If any information is defined by the rules as part of that person's monthly report, then e SHALL maintain all such information, and the publication of all such information is part of eir monthly duties. Any information defined by the rules as part of a person's report, without specifying which one, is part of eir weekly report. Failure of a person to perform any duty required of em within the allotted time is the Class-2 crime of Tardiness. An official duty for an office is any duty that the Rules specifically assign to that office's holder in particular (regardless of eir identity). A person SHALL NOT publish information that is inaccurate or misleading while performing an official duty, or within a document purporting to be part of any person or office's weekly or monthly report. Reports SHALL be published in plain text. Tabular data must line up properly when viewed in a monospaced font. Publishing a report that deviates from these regulations is the Class 2 Crime of Making My Eyes Bleed. Officers SHOULD maintain a publicly visible copy of their reports on the World Wide Web, and they SHOULD publish the address of this copy along with their published reports. [CFJ 2392 (called 27 February 2009): Publishing an intentionally incomplete report does not satisfy this rule's requirement to publish a report.] History: Created by Proposal 4970 (Zefram), 23 May 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Retitled by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008 Amended(2) by Proposal 5485 (root), 9 April 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5956 (comex), 17 November 2008 Amended(4) by Proposal 6030 (Murphy; disi.), 8 January 2009 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6155 (comex), 31 March 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 6224 (comex), 27 April 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 6322 (Wooble), 26 May 2009 Amended(9) by Proposal 6368 (C-walker), 23 June 2009 Amended(10) by Proposal 6428 (BobTHJ), 18 August 2009 Amended(11) by cleaning (Murphy), 6 March 2010 Amended(12) by Proposal 6664 (Murphy; disi.), 10 March 2010 Amended(13) by cleaning (Murphy), 29 July 2010 Amended(14) by Proposal 6967 (Wooble), 20 March 2011 Amended(15) by Proposal 7045 (Walker), 16 May 2011 Amended(16) by Proposal 7313 (Machiavelli), 27 September 2012 Amended(17) by Proposal 7451 (omd), 10 June 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7544 (Machiavelli), 30 July 2013 Amended(19) by Proposal 7563 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(20) by Proposal 7599 (Walker), 14 September 2013 Amended(21) by Proposal 7606 (G.), 13 December 2013 Amended(22) by Proposal 7648 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(23) by Proposal 7697 (omd), 23 October 2014 Amended(24) by Proposal 7704 (G.), 3 November 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2379/0 (Power=1) No News Is Some News If the rules define a report as including a list, then while that list is empty, that report includes the fact that it is empty. History: Created by Proposal 7286 (FKA441344), 9 September 2012 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2160/14 (Power=3) Deputisation A rule which purports to allow a person (a deputy) to perform an action via normal deputisation or special deputisation for an office thereby allows them to perform the action as if e held the office, as long as (a) it would be POSSIBLE for the deputy to perform the action, other than by deputisation, if e held the office, and (b) the deputy, when performing the action, announces that e is doing so by the appropriate form of deputisation. Only this rule may allow normal deputisation. Any rule may allow special deputisation. A player CAN perform an action as if e held a particular office, via normal deputisation, if all of the following are true: (a) The rules require the holder of that office, by virtue of holding that office, to perform the action. This requirement is fulfilled by the deputy performing the action. (b) A time limit by which the rules require the action to be performed has expired. (c) Either (i) the office is vacant; or (ii) the aforementioned time limit expired more than fourteen days ago; or (iii) the deputy announced between two and fourteen days earlier that e intended to deputise for that office for the purposes of the particular action. When a player deputises via normal deputisation for an elected office, e becomes the holder of that office. [CFJ 1776 (called 1 November 2007): A requirement to perform an action, for the purposes of this rule, can be a logical implication from rules and circumstances, not just directly imposed by the rules. In particular, it is possible to deputise to rotate the bench.] [CFJ 2400 (called 6 March 2009): Deputisation is generally treated as if the deputy gained the office immediately before the action, and lost it immediately after.] History: Created by Proposal 5103 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5200 (Zefram; disi.), 8 September 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5414 (Murphy), 26 January 2008 Amended(3) by Proposal 5454 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 5983 (Warrigal), 29 November 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6129 (Goethe), 15 March 2009 Amended(5) by Proposal 6144 (Wooble), 23 March 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6218 (Murphy), 27 April 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 6482 (c.), 18 September 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 7300 (scshunt), 27 September 2012 Amended(9) by Proposal 7403 (omd), 27 April 2013 Amended(10) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(11) by Proposal 7651 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(12) by Proposal 7652 (scshunt), 3 June 2014 Amended(13) by Proposal 7713 (Warrigal), 9 November 2014 Amended(14) by Proposal 7804 (nichdel), 31 July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1551/18 (Power=3.1) Ratification A public document is part (possibly all) of a public message. When a public document is ratified, rules to the contrary notwithstanding, the gamestate is modified to what it would be if, at the time the ratified document was published, the gamestate had been minimally modified to make the ratified document as true and accurate as possible. Such a modification cannot add inconsistencies between the gamestate and the rules, and it cannot include rule changes unless the ratified document explicitly and unambiguously recites either the changes or the resulting properties of the rule(s). If no such modification is possible, or multiple substantially distinct possible modifications would be equally appropriate, the ratification fails. An internally inconsistent document generally cannot be ratified; however, if such a document can be divided into a summary section and a main section, where the only purpose of the summary section is to summarize information in the main section, and the main section is internally consistent, ratification of the document proceeds as if it contained only the main section. Text purportedly about previous instances of ratification (e.g. a report's date of last ratification) is excluded from ratification. The rules may define additional information that is considered to be part of the document for the purposes of ratification; such definitions are secured at a Power Threshold of 3. Ratifying a public document is secured with power threshold 3. [CFJ 2165 (called 16 September 2008): Ratification can create legal fictions, but does not always.] [CFJ 3155 (called 26 January 2012): A "recent history" section of a report is not considered binding as a complete list of certain types of events during a certain date range.] History: Created by Proposal 2425, Jan. 30 1996 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 4 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(2) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3704 (General Chaos), Mar. 19 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(6) by Proposal 4832 (Maud), 6 August 2005 Amended(7) by Proposal 4868 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(8) by Proposal 5101 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5212 (Murphy), 8 September 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5275 (Murphy), 7 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5315 (Murphy), 28 November 2007 Amended(12) by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 6570 (Murphy), 28 November 2009 Power changed from 3 to 3.1 by Proposal 6806 (coppro), 27 August 2010 Amended(14) by Proposal 6930 (ais523), 2 January 2011 Amended(15) by Proposal 6938 (omd), 2 January 2011 Power changed from 3.1 to 3 by SLR ratification (Proposal 6839; omd), 2 January 2011 Power changed from 3 to 3.1 by Proposal 7262 (omd), 7 July 2012 Amended(16) by Proposal 7568 (omd, Fool), 24 August 2013 Amended(17) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7664 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2202/6 (Power=3) Ratification Without Objection Any player CAN, without objection, ratify a public document, specifying its scope. Ratification Without Objection CANNOT cause the repeal, amendment, enactment, or mutation of any Rule, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. A player SHALL NOT knowingly use or announce intent to use Ratification Without Objection to ratify a (prior to ratification) document containing incorrect or Indeterminate information when a corrected document could be produced with reasonable effort, unless the general nature of the document's error and reason for ratifying it is clearly and plainly described in the announcement of intent. Such ratification or announcement of intent to ratify is the Class-8 Crime of Endorsing Forgery. [CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): Ratification of an official document affects only those aspects of gamestate that are defined to be part of the official report, and not aspects that are incidentally reported on; in particular, ratification of an official report on certain parameters pertaining to each player does not ratify the list of players.] [CFJ 2289 (called 25 November 2008): Ratification Without Objection of a value inseparable from another value may change the latter value even if it is not directly part of the report being ratified.] History: Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 6048 (Wooble), 13 January 2009 Amended(2) by Proposal 6174 (woggle), 7 April 2009 Amended(3) by Proposal 6340 (G.), 11 June 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 6754 (coppro; disi.), 2 August 2010 Amended(5) by Proposal 7451 (omd), 10 June 2013 Amended(6) by Proposal 7680 (scshunt), 12 July 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2201/6 (Power=3) Self-Ratification A public document defined by the rules as self-ratifying is ratified when it is continuously undoubted for one week. A doubt is an explicit public challenge via one of the following methods, identifying a document and explaining the scope and nature of a perceived error in it: a) An inquiry case, appropriate for questions of legal interpretation. b) A claim of error, appropriate for matters of fact. The publisher of the original document SHALL (if e was required to publish that document) or SHOULD (otherwise) do one of the following in a timely fashion: i) Deny the claim (causing it to cease to be a doubt). ii) Publish a revision. iii) Initiate an inquiry case regarding the truth of the claim (if the subject is actually a matter of law), or cite a relevant existing inquiry case. [CFJ 1690 (called 19 June 2007): A challenge to a self-ratifying document [at the time of CFJ 1690, the resolution of an Agoran decision] must explicitly identify the document, either individually or as part of a set, and explicitly contest the accuracy of some aspect of it.] [CFJs 1790-1791 (called 11 November 2007): A challenge to any part of a self-ratifying document prevents ratification of all parts of it.] History: Created by Proposal 5459 (Murphy), 9 March 2008 Amended(1) by Proposal 6106 (Murphy, ais523), 22 February 2009 Amended(2) by Proposal 6243 (Murphy), 9 May 2009 Amended(3) by Proposal 6622 (Murphy), 20 February 2010 Amended(4) by Proposal 6744 (Murphy), 1 July 2010 Amended(5) by Proposal 6922 (Murphy; disi.), 2 January 2011 Amended(6) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2446/3 (Power=1) The Agoran Newspaper The Reportor is an office. The Reportor's weekly report includes: a) A suitable name for a newspaper, at the Reportor's discretion. b) A description of events that have happened since the last report that the Reportor believes significant or interesting. c) Any editorialization or other pieces of Agora-related information the Reportor pleases, as long as it is neither i) factually incorrect nor ii) disrespectful to any person or Agora itself. While meeting these requirements, the Reportor may format eir report however e pleases. The Reportor should keep in mind that the goal of eir weekly report is to create a more informed population. History: Created by Proposal 7729 (Henri), 11 February 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7766 (scshunt), 24 July 2015 Amended(2) by Proposal 7786 (scshunt), 29 August 2015 Amended(3) by Proposal 7805 (nichdel), 31 July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2138/22 (Power=1) The Associate Director of Personnel The Associate Director of Personnel (ADoP) is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of officers. The ADoP's report includes the following: a) The date of the last change (if any) to each office's Officeholder. b) The date on which the most recent election for each office was initiated. [CFJ 1672 (called 18 May 2007): The Interstellar Associate Director of Personnel is the Director of Personnel.] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 4956 (Murphy), 7 May 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(3) by Proposal 5367 (Levi; disi.), 20 December 2007 Amended(4) by Proposal 5517 (Wooble; disi.), 28 May 2008 Amended(5) by Proposal 5718 (ais523), 7 October 2008 Assigned to Committee on Administration by Proposal 6053 (Murphy, woggle, ais523), 23 January 2009 Amended(6) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009 Amended(7) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009 Amended(8) by Proposal 6230 (Wooble), 4 May 2009 Amended(9) by Proposal 6282 (Yally), 19 May 2009 Amended(10) and title changed by Proposal 6377 (coppro; disi.), 3 July 2009 Amended(11) by Proposal 6493 (coppro; disi.), 18 September 2009 Retitled and amended(12) by Proposal 6667 (Murphy), 10 March 2010 Retitled and amended(13) by Proposal 6975 (Murphy), 30 March 2011 Amended(14) by Proposal 7465 (Walker), 17 June 2013 Amended(15) by Proposal 7483 (scshunt), 9 July 2013 Amended(16) by Proposal 7524 (scshunt), 19 July 2013 Amended(17) by Proposal 7566 (Walker), 24 August 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7629 (scshunt), 7 April 2014 Amended(19) by Proposal 7663 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(20) by Proposal 7649 (omd), 3 June 2014 Amended(21) by Proposal 7757 (scshunt), 17 July 2015 Retitled by Proposal 7757 (scshunt), 17 July 2015 Retitled by Proposal 7758 (omd), 19 July 2015 Amended(22) by Proposal 7758 (omd), 19 July 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2139/8 (Power=2) The Registrar The Registrar is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of players. The Registrar's weekly report includes: a) A list of all players, including information sufficient to identify and contact each player. b) The date on which each player most recently became a player. c) For each forum with non-Foreign publicity, sufficient instructions for players to receive messages there. The Registrar's monthly report includes: a) For each former player for which the information is reasonably available, the dates on which e registered and deregistered. In the first week of every month the Registrar SHALL attempt to deregister every player that has not sent a message to a public forum in the preceding month. The Registrar's duties and abilities also include: * Changing the publicity of a forum, as described in Rule 478. * Publishing Cantus Cygnei and Writs of FAGE as described in Rule 1789. The Registrar is also responsible for tracking any switches that would otherwise lack an officer to track them, unless the switch is defined as untracked. [CFJ 1703 (called 13 July 2007): A player cannot change eir nickname by announcement if the new nickname that e specifies is the current nickname of another player.] [CFJ 1361 (called 7 May 2002): Purporting to assign a new nickname, previously unused to refer to any entity, to another player is successful, but does not displace the target's existing name or nickname.] [CFJ 1489 (called 11 February 2004): Watchers are not a rule-defined element of the game.] [CFJ 1420 (called 17 December 2002): The list of watchers, customarily published with the registrar's report, is part of the game state, even though it is not mentioned in the rules and no one is obliged to track or publish it.] History: Created by Proposal 4939 (Murphy), 29 April 2007 Amended(1) by Proposal 5172 (Murphy), 29 August 2007 Amended(2) by Proposal 6322 (Wooble), 26 May 2009 Amended(3) twice by Proposal 6567 (Walker), 28 November 2009 Power changed from 1 to 2 by Proposal 6567 (Walker), 28 November 2009 Amended(4) by Proposal 7141 (G.), 19 November 2011 Amended(5) by Proposal 7416 (omd), 12 May 2013 Amended(6) by Proposal 7586 (omd), 24 August 2013 Amended(7) by Proposal 7632 (scshunt), 1 May 2014 Amended(8) by Proposal 7810 (nichdel), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== The Economy ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2483/2 (Power=2) Economics Agora, each player, and each organization have corresponding switches known as Balance switches. Each Balance switch's possible values are integers. Agora's Balance's default value is 1000. Each player and organization's Balance's default value is 0. Balances are tracked by the Secretary. The unit for Balance values is shiny (pl. shinies). If Agora, a player, or an organization (A) 'pays' X shinies to Agora, a player, or an organization (B), A's Balance is decreased by X and B's Balance is increased by X. Any attempt to pay a negative amount is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Any player CAN pay Agora, any other player, or any organization any amount by announcement, unless it would make eir own balance negative. Any attempt to PAY any amount that would make any player's or any organization's balance negative is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. Any organization CAN pay Agora, any player, or any other organization by announcement by a member of said organization, as specified in the charter of said organization, unless it would make the organization's balance negative. Any attempt by any player to cause an organization to pay any amount that would make that organization's balance negative is INEFFECTIVE, rules to the contrary notwithstanding. History: Created by Proposal 7838 (o, nichdel, G., Oerjan), 5 December 2016 Amended(1) by Proposal 7841 (o, G.), 1 March 2017 Amended(2) by Proposal 7842 (nichdel, o), 1 March 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2484/2 (Power=1) Payday Payrate is an office switch, tracked by the ADoP, with a default value of 10 and possible values of positive integers. At the start of each month, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less, Agora SHALL pay each player 10 shinies. Immediately afterward, if Agora's Balance is not 0 or less, Agora SHALL pay each player who holds an office the office's Payrate value, in ascending order of Payrate (breaking ties alphabetically by office) until all are paid or paying the next office would leave Agora's balance at 0 or less. History: Created by Proposal 7838 (o, nichdel, G., Oerjan), 5 December 2016 Amended(1) by Proposal 7841 (o, G.), 1 March 2017 Amended(2) by Proposal 7842 (nichdel, o), 1 March 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2487/0 (Power=2) Shiny Supply Level The Supply Level is 1000. When the Supply Level is changed, Agora's Balance is increased or decreased such that all Balances add up to the Supply Level. History: Created by Proposal 7842 (nichdel, o), 1 March 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2488/0 (Power=1) The Surveyor The Surveyor is an office. Eir weekly report includes the owner of each Estate. History: Created by Proposal 7846 (o, Aris), 8 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2489/0 (Power=2) Estates An Estate is a type of entity. The following changes are secured: creating, modifying, or destroying an Estate; and causing an entity to become an Estate or cease to be an Estate. Owner is a switch belonging to each Estate, tracked by the Surveyor, whose legal values are any player, any Organization, or Agora. The default Owner of an Estate is Agora. Changes to Owner switches are secured. To transfer an Estate to a player or Organization is to set its Owner switch to that player or that Organization. To transfer an Estate to Agora is to set its Owner switch to Agora. A player who owns an Estate can and may transfer it to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement. A player may cause an Organization which owns an Estate to transfer that Estate to any player, to any Organization, or to Agora, by announcement, if it is Appropriate to do so under that Organization's charter. History: Created by Proposal 7846 (o, Aris), 8 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2490/0 (Power=3) Estate Ballots During any Agoran Decision, a player who owns one or more Estates can, by announcement, expend any number of their owned Estates on the Agoran Decision by transferring that Estate to Agora. Eir voting strength on that decision is increased by 1 for each Estate expended on it. History: Created by Proposal 7846 (o, Aris), 8 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2491/0 (Power=2) Estate Auctions At the start of each month, if Agora owns at least one Estate, the Surveyor shall put one Estate which is owned by Agora up for auction, by announcement. Each auction ends seven days after it begins. During an auction, any player may bid any number of Shinies by announcement. Any player may cause any Organization to bid any number of Shinies, by announcement, if it is Appropriate under that Organization's charter to place the bid. At the end of an auction, if there is a single highest bid, the player or Organization that placed the highest bid can cause Agora to transfer the auctioned Estate to emself by paying Agora the number of Shinies stated in their most recent bid. If the highest bidder does not do so in a timely fashion, the Surveyor shall issue the player who submitted the bid a Yellow Card. History: Created by Proposal 7846 (o, Aris), 8 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2485/1 (Power=1) You can't take it with you "Heir" is a person switch, tracked by the Registrar, whose value is either empty or the name of a player or Organization. Each person's Heir is empty by default. A player may flip eir Heir by announcement. When a player is deregistered, if eir Heir switch is not empty, e automatically pays all of eir Balance to the named player or Organization, and transfers all of eir Estates to the named player or Organization. Otherwise, if eir Heir switch is empty, e may specify another player, an Organization, or Agora, and pay all of eir Balance and transfer all of eir Estates to the specified player or Organization. If the player does not do so within 1 day of deregistration, the Registrar CAN and SHALL cause that player to pay eir Balance to Agora and to transfer all of eir Estates to Agora, by announcement. History: Created by Proposal 7838 (o, nichdel, G., Oerjan), 5 December 2016 Amended(1) by Proposal 7846 (o, Aris), 9 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Collective Structures ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2456/1 (Power=1) The Secretary The Secretary is an office. The Secretary's weekly report includes: a) A list of which persons are on Personal Lockout. b) The time at which each person on Personal Lockout comes off Lockout. c) Whether Agora is on Global Lockout, and if so, when it ends. d) A list of all Organizations and their Income. e) Each player's Expenditure. The Secretary's monthly report includes: a) Each Organization's Charter. History: Created by Proposal 7791 (ais523), 28 October 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7793 (ais523, aranea, G.), 28 October 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2459/2 (Power=1.2) Organizations An Organization is a type of entity. The following changes are secured: creating, modifying, or destroying an Organization; and causing an entity to become an Organization or cease to be an Organization. The Income Cap is 100. Budget is a switch belonging to (Organization, player) pairs (i.e. there is one instance of the switch for each combination of an Organization and a player), tracked by the Secretary, whose legal values are integers from 0 to the Income Cap inclusive, defaulting to 0. An Organization's Income is the total value of all Budget switches for pairs that include that Organization. A player's Expenditure is the total value of all Budget switches for pairs that include that player. Changes to Budget are secured. A "member" of an Organization is a player for which the pair consisting of that Organization and that player has a nonzero Budget. It is IMPOSSIBLE, by any means, for a player to become a member of an Organization, or for an organization to be created with a player as a member, without that player's explicit, willful consent. This rule takes precedence over any rule that might make such a change possible. History: Created by Proposal 7793 (ais523, aranea, G.), 28 October 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7795 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7795 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2460/0 (Power=1.2) Organizational Restructuring Charter is an Organization switch, tracked by the Secretary in eir monthly report, whose legal values are texts, and with default value "An amendment to this Organization is Appropriate if intent to perform it was announced between 4 and 14 days ago, and no members of the Organization have publicly objected to it since." A change to an instance of a Budget or Charter switch is known as an "amendment" to the Organization to which that instance of the switch applies. Each amendment to an Organization is considered to be either Appropriate or Inappropriate. An Organization's Charter SHOULD contain a method of determining the appropriateness of amendments to that Organization. If a Charter does not specify the appropriateness of an amendment to its Organization, or if it attempts to specify the appropriateness of such an amendment but in a way that is unclear, ambiguous, circular, inconsistent, paradoxical, or that depends on information that is impossible or unreasonably difficult to determine, the amendment is Inappropriate; otherwise, it is Appropriate if and only if the Charter specifies that it is. Organizations can be amended as follows: a) A member of an Organization CAN flip that Organization's Charter by announcement, if doing so is Appropriate, and that member is not on Lockout. b) Any player CAN flip a Budget Switch by announcement, if doing so is Appropriate and the player is not on Lockout, except where other rules prevent this. c) A member of an Organization CAN flip that Organization's Charter without objection, even if doing so is Inappropriate, as long as that member is not on Lockout. Players SHOULD only use this mechanism to recover from situations where the Charter is underspecified or has unintended effects. History: Created by Proposal 7793 (ais523, aranea, G.), 28 October 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2461/2 (Power=1.2) Death and Birth of Organizations The Income Floor is 50. If an Organization's Income is ever lower than the Income Floor, then any player CAN destroy it by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so in a timely fashion if the situation persists. If a player's Expenditure is at most the Income Cap minus the Income Floor, and e is not on Lockout, then e CAN create an Organization by announcement, specifying a name for that Organization that is unique among Organizations, and a Charter. When an organization is created this way, its Charter is set to the value that e specified, and the Budget switch for that player and Organization is set to the Income Floor. Notwithstanding the above, a player CANNOT create more than one Organization in a day, and CANNOT create Organizations while e is a member of an Organization with an Income lower than the Income Floor. History: Created by Proposal 7793 (ais523, aranea, G.), 28 October 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7794 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7795 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2462/3 (Power=1.2) Bankruptcy While a player's Expenditure exceeds the Income Cap, then any player CAN cause that player to become Bankrupt by announcement, and the Secretary SHALL do so in a timely fashion if the situation persists. When a player becomes Bankrupt: a) All Budget switches for pairs including that player are flipped to 0. b) The Secretary CAN, and SHALL in a timely manner, award that player a Yellow Card. c) A Lockout Event happens to that player. History: Created by Proposal 7793 (ais523, aranea, G.), 28 October 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7794 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 Amended(2) by Proposal 7795 (Murphy), 12 Februray 2016 Amended(3) by Proposal 7831 (Alexis), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2457/0 (Power=1.2) Lockout There is such a thing as a Lockout Event, which can happen either to a person or to Agora as a whole. Lockout Events only happen when a Rule with power 1 or greater explicitly states that they happen. A person is on Personal Lockout if a Lockout Event happened to that person within the past 90 days. Agora is on Global Lockout if a Lockout Event happened to Agora as a whole within the past 7 days. A person is on Lockout if that person is on Personal Lockout, Agora is on Global Lockout, or both. A person is "off Lockout" if that person is not on Lockout. History: Created by Proposal 7791 (ais523), 28 October 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2458/0 (Power=1.2) Invoking Lockout A player who is not on Lockout can Invoke Lockout by announcement. When a player Invokes Lockout, a Lockout Event happens to that player and a Lockout Event happens to Agora as a whole. History: Created by Proposal 7792 (ais523), 28 October 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2467/1 (Power=1) Agencies An Agency is a document empowering persons to act on behalf of another player. A player may establish an Agency With 24 hours Notice and thereby become its Director by specifying the properties of the new Agency: a) A title, which must be exactly three words, not counting conjunctions, articles or prepositions. b) A non-empty list of persons other than the Head (the Agents). c) A description of a set of actions (the Powers). An Agency's Head may amend its properties or revoke it with 24 hours Notice. For greater certainty, an announced intent to create an Agency or amend an Agency's powers is INEFFECTIVE unless it explicitly specifies the new values of the properties being created or amended. The Powers of an Agency must be stated as actions, although they may may be conditional on date, time, game state, or other preconditions. If condition(s) are specified as necessary for a power to be used, it is limited; otherwise, it is unlimited. If it attempts to specify a power in a manner that is unclear, ambiguous, circular, inconsistent, paradoxical, or that depends on information that is impossible or unreasonably difficult to determine, then the specification of that power is invalid, and it CANNOT be used. An Agency, once created, SHOULD be referred to by the acronym formed from its title with conjunctions, articles, and prepositions removed. The acronym of an agency must be unique and any attempt to create or amend an Agency such that two Agencies would have the same acronym is INEFFECTIVE. The Agents of an Agency may perform the Actions described in the Powers of the Agency on behalf of the Agency's Head. History: Created by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016 Amended(1) by Proposal 7845 (Aris, ais523), 9 May 2017 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2468/0 (Power=1) Superintendent The Superintendent is an office; its holder is responsible for keeping track of Agencies. The Superintendent's weekly report includes: - the Head and acronym of all Agencies, - the full properties of all Agencies created since the Superintendent's previous report. - the amended properties of all Agencies whose properties were amended since the Superintendent's previous report. The Superintendent's monthly report includes the Head and properties of all Agencies. History: Created by Proposal 7815 (Alexis, aranea), 28 October 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Winning ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2452/2 (Power=0.5) Trust Tokens Any player can issue a Trust Token to another person by announcement. When the Assessor resolves a Decision to adopt a proposal, then any player who cast a valid vote on the Decision and was endorsed by another player's valid vote on the Decision is issued a Trust Token by the endorsing player. A person can win the game by announcement if e has been issued a Trust Token by each player except emself; if no person has won via this mechanism in the past; and if in the same message, e quotes, for each of those players, a public message in which that player issued em a Trust Token. History: Created by Proposal 7768 (ais523), 24 July 2015 Power changed from 1.0 to 0.5 by Proposal 7768 (ais523), 24 July 2015 Amended(1) by Proposal 7790 (the Warrigal, Bucky), 13 October 2015 Amended(2) by Proposal 7801 (G.), 19 July 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2438/5 (Power=3) Ribbons The Tailor is an office, and the recordkeepor of Ribbons. Ribbon Ownership is a person switch, tracked by the Tailor in his monthly report, whose values are the subsets of the set of types of Ribbon, defaulting to the empty set. To "award a person a <Ribbon type>" is to add that type of Ribbon to that person's Ribbon Ownership. A person "owns a <Ribbon type>" if that type of Ribbon is an element of eir Ribbon Ownership. While a person qualifies for a type of Ribbon, any player can generally award em that type of Ribbon. A person qualifies for a type of Ribbon if e has earned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days (including earlier in the same message) and has not owned that type of Ribbon within the preceding 7 days. While a person owns all types of Ribbon, that person can Raise a Banner by announcement. This causes that person to win the game. That person's Ribbon Ownership becomes the empty set. The types of Ribbon, and the methods of obtaining them, are as follows: Red (R): When a proposal is adopted and changes at least one rule with Power >= 3, its proposer earns a Red Ribbon. Orange (O): When a proposal is adopted via an Agoran Decision on which no valid votes were AGAINST, its proposer earns an Orange Ribbon. Green (G): While a person has held an elected office continuously for 30 days, and has not failed to perform any duties of that office within the appropriate time limits during those 30 days, that person qualifies for a Green Ribbon. Cyan (C): When a person deputises for an office, that person earns a Cyan Ribbon. Blue (B): When a person assigns a judgement to a CFJ, and has never violated a time limit to assign a judgement to that CFJ, that person earns a Blue Ribbon. Magenta (M): During Agora's Birthday, each person who has publicly acknowledged the fact qualifies for a Magenta Ribbon. Ultraviolet (U): When a person is awarded the Patent Title Champion, that person earns an Ultraviolet Ribbon. Violet (V): When a person is awarded a Patent Title other than Champion or a degree, that person earns a Violet Ribbon. Indigo (I): When a person is awarded a degree, that person earns an Indigo Ribbon. Platinum (P): The Speaker qualifies for a Platinum Ribbon. Lime (L): A person qualifies for a Lime Ribbon if three or more proposals adopted in the preceding 7 days had that person as a coauthor. White (W): A player qualifies for a White Ribbon if e has never previously owned a White Ribbon (including under previous rulesets). A player who has been registered for at least 30 days and has never caused another person to gain a White Ribbon (including under a previous ruleset) CAN award a White Ribbon to another person by announcement. Black (K): This rule does not specify any methods of obtaining Black Ribbons. Gray (A): The Tailor CAN award a Gray Ribbon by announcement, unless e has done so earlier in the month. E is ENCOURAGED to award such a Ribbon in the same message in which e publishes eir monthly report. Transparent (T): A person qualifies for a Transparent Ribbon while the number of other types of Ribbon that that person qualifies for and/or has earned within the previous 7 days is at least 5. History: Created by Proposal 7698 (ais523), 3 November 2014 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 7725 (aranea), 16 November 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7735 (aranea), 2 May 2015 Amended(2) by Proposal 7746 (aranea), 19 May 2015 Amended(3) by Proposal 7748 (ais523), 30 June 2015 Amended(4) by Proposal 7760 (G.), 19 July 2015 Amended(5) by Proposal 7834 (ais523), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2444/2 (Power=1) Silver Quill The Silver Quill is an annual award designed to honor the authors of proposals of outstanding merit and influence on the game. In a timely fashion after the end of each Agoran Year, the Herald SHALL initiate and Agoran Decision to determine which Proposal has most greatly influenced that (ending) year of play. For this decision, the valid options are all proposals adopted between November 1 of the year prior to the ending year, and October 31 of the ending year. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant runoff. Players are ENCOURAGED to discuss which eligible proposals best satisfy the aforementioned criteria. Proposals submitted by new players SHOULD be given somewhat higher weight, but the primary reference should be the proposals themselves and their effect on the game since adoption. Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome is not FAILED QUORUM and there were at least three votes containing it in any preference slot, that proposal wins the Ceremony, and the Herald is authorized to award its author the Patent Title of "Silver Quill YYYY, substituting the ending year; otherwise, there is no winner. History: Created by Proposal 7722 (omd), 11 November 2014 Amended(1) by Proposal 7778 (scshunt), 14 August 2014 Amended(2) by Proposal 7809 (G.), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2464/0 (Power=1) Tournaments A Tournament is a sub-game of Agora specifically sanctioned to be initiated as a tournament by the Rules. If a winner of a tournament is determined within 4 weeks of its initiation, that person or persons win the game, otherwise the tournament concludes with no winner. In a timely fashion after the start of June 1 of each year, the Herald SHALL propose a set of Regulations governing a Birthday Tournament for that year; the Herald CAN also delegate the responsibility for creating or running the tournament to another player, with that player's consent. The Birthday Tournament's regulations SHOULD be such that all persons who choose to participate have a fair chance of winning the tournament (according to its regulations), and a winner SHOULD be expected within 2-3 weeks following the tournament's initiation. After adequate time for discussion of the Birthday Tournament's regulations, the Herald (or delegate) CAN initiate a sanctioned tournament with a specified, finalized set of regulations, Without 3 Objections. The initiation SHOULD be timed to coincide with Agora's Birthday. History: Created by Proposal 7809 (G.), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2482/0 (Power=0.5) Victory Elections If nobody has done so in the previous 180 days, the Herald CAN initiate a Victory Election, a type of Agoran decision. On such a decision, all players are valid options; non-player persons can also become valid options during the voting period by announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting method is instant runoff. Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome is a person, then that person wins the game. History: Created by Proposal 7836 (ais523), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2465/0 (Power=0.3) Victory by Apathy A player CAN Declare Apathy without objection, specifying a set of players. Upon doing so, the specified players win the game. History: Created by Proposal 7811 (ais523), 11 September 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Death of the Republic ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2480/0 (Power=2.1) Festivals Festivity is a singleton switch, whose possible values are integers ranging from 0 inclusive to the number of defined types of Ribbon exclusive, and defaulting to 0. While Agora's Festivity is 0, Festivity is tracked in the Tailor's monthly report. Otherwise, it is tracked in the Tailor's weekly report. Changes to Festivity are secured. If Agora's Festivity has had the same nonzero value for 14 days or more, any player may flip it to 0 by announcement. A player who owns at least N types of Ribbon may Start a Rank N Festival, where N is an integer greater than Agora's Festivity, with 4 Support from players who own at least N types of Ribbon. Upon doing so, Agora's Festivity is flipped to N. Exception: A player may not do so if Agora's Festivity has had a value greater than or equal to N within the past 21 days. A person who owns a number of types of Ribbon equal to or greater than Agora's Festivity is known as Festive. Other persons are not Festive. History: Created by Proposal 7833 (ais523), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2481/0 (Power=2.1) Festival Restrictions While Agora's Festivity is nonzero, the following apply: (a) Non-Festive players are never considered Supporters of a dependent action; (b) Non-Festive players cannot flip the Imminence of any proposal; (c) Quorum for Agoran Decisions is equal to half the number of Festive players, rounded up; (d) Each Festive player has the maximum possible voting strength. All other players have the minimum possible voting strength. While Agora's Festivity is zero, the paragraphs above have no effect and are ignored. History: Created by Proposal 7833 (ais523), 5 December 2016 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Trophies ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 649/37 (Power=1.5) Patent Titles A Patent Title is a legal title given to a person in recognition of the person's distinction. The Herald is an office; its holder is responsible for tracking Patent Titles in eir monthly report. Awarding or revoking a Patent Title is secured. A person permitted and enabled to award (revoke) a Patent Title SHALL do so in a timely fashion after the conditions authorizing em to do so are announced, unless there is an open judicial case contesting the validity of those conditions. The Herald CAN award a specified Patent Title to a specified player With 2 Agoran Consent. [CFJ 1525 (called 15 November 2004): If a patent title is defined by the rules, and previously the rules defined a patent title with the same spelling but a different award condition, the two are the same patent title.] [CFJ 1592 (called 1 December 2006): A patent title, once borne, is borne until explicitly revoked, even if the rule defining the patent title is repealed or the patent title was never defined by a rule.] [CFJ 1731 (called 23 August 2007): It is possible for an entity [a person at the time of CFJ 1731] to bear more than one instance of a patent title simultaneously.] [CFJ 1591 (called 1 December 2006): Where a person bears the patent title X, and X is not also defined by the rules to have some special meaning, it is correct to say that that person "is an X".] History: Created by Proposal 649 (Wes), ca. Oct. 22 1993 ... Amended(1) by Proposal 1334, Nov. 22 1994 Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995 Amended(3) by Proposal 2532, Mar. 10 1996 Amended(4) by Proposal 2693, Oct. 3 1996 Amended(5) by Proposal 2807 (Andre), Feb. 8 1997, cosmetic (unattributed) Amended(6) by Proposal 3445 (General Chaos), Mar. 26 1997, substantial Amended(7) by Proposal 3488 (Zefram), May 19 1997, substantial (unattributed) Amended(8) by Proposal 3849 (Vlad), Apr. 6 1999 Amended(9) by Proposal 3860 (Peekee), May 12 1999 Amended(10) by Proposal 3914 (Elysion), Sep. 19 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3916 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(11) by Proposal 3968 (harvel), Feb. 4 2000 Amended(12) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(13) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001 Amended(14) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(15) by Proposal 4497 (Steve), 13 May 2003 Amended(16) by Proposal 4691 (root), 18 April 2005 Amended(17) by Proposal 4824 (Maud, Manu), 17 July 2005 Amended(18) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(19) by Proposal 5036 (Zefram), 28 June 2007 Amended(20) by Proposal 5084 (Zefram; disi.), 1 August 2007 Amended(21) by Proposal 5112 (Murphy), 2 August 2007 Amended(22) by Proposal 5123 (Zefram; disi.), 13 August 2007 Amended(23) by Proposal 5237 (AFO; disi.), 3 October 2007 Amended(24) by Proposal 5239 (AFO), 3 October 2007 Amended(25) by Proposal 5341 (Goethe), 8 December 2007 Amended(26) by Proposal 5412 (woggle), 26 January 2008 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Amended(27) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Amended(28) by Proposal 6047 (comex), 13 January 2009 Amended(29) by Proposal 6175 (Yally), 7 April 2009 Amended(30) by cleaning (Wooble), 13 April 2009 Amended(31) by Proposal 6424 (Murphy), 16 August 2009 Amended(32) by Proposal 7050 (omd), 16 May 2011 Amended(33) by Proposal 7315 (omd), 16 October 2012 Amended(34) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013 Amended(35) by Proposal 7470 (woggle; disi.), 17 June 2013 Amended(36) by Proposal 7621 (G.), 23 February 2014 Amended(37) by Proposal 7755 (G.), 30 June 2015 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1367/19 (Power=3) Degrees Certain patent titles are known as degrees. The degrees are - Associate of Nomic (A.N.) - Bachelor of Nomic (B.N.) - Master of Nomic (M.N.) - Doctor of Nomic History (D.N.Hist.) - Doctor of Nomic Science (D.N.Sci.) - Doctor of Nomic Philosophy (D.N.Phil.) Degrees are ranked in the order they appear in this rule, with degrees listed later being ranked higher. A specific degree CANNOT be awarded to any person more than once. A specified degree CAN be awarded with 2 Agoran Consent, and SHOULD only be awarded for the publication of an original thesis of scholarly worth (including responses to peer-review), published with explicit intent to qualify for a degree. The Herald SHOULD coordinate the peer-review process and the awarding of degrees. History: Created by Proposal 1367, Jan. 5 1995 Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Feb. 12 1996 Amended(2) by Proposal 3452 (Steve), Apr. 7 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3741 (Murphy), May 8 1998 Amended(4) by Proposal 3889 (harvel), Aug. 9 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 4002 (harvel), May 8 2000 Amended(6) by Proposal 4110 (Ziggy), Feb. 13 2001 Amended(7) by Proposal 4865 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(8) by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Power changed from 1 to 1.5 by Proposal 5085 (Zefram), 1 August 2007 Amended(9) by Proposal 5243 (root; disi.), 7 October 2007 Amended(10) by Proposal 5276 (Murphy, Pavitra, Zefram), 7 November 2007 Amended(11) by Proposal 5437 (Goethe), 13 February 2008 Power changed from 1.5 to 1 by Proposal 5947 (ais523), 15 November 2008 Amended(12) by Proposal 5955 (ais523, Elysion, Murphy; disi.), 18 November 2008 Amended(13) by Proposal 6257 (coppro), 11 May 2009 Amended(14) by Proposal 6624 (Murphy), 20 February 2010 Amended(15) by Proposal 6671 (Yally; disi.), 22 March 2010 Power changed from 1 to 3 by Proposal 6717 (coppro), 4 May 2010 Amended(16) by SLR ratification (Proposal 6806; coppro), 27 August 2010 Amended(17) by Proposal 7420 (omd), 27 May 2013 Amended(18) by Proposal 7591 (scshunt), 14 September 2013 Amended(19) by Proposal 7620 (omd), 24 January 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2231/5 (Power=3) Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic Heroic titles are Agora's premier patent titles of distinction, and CAN be awarded to persons for meritorious service only by a proposal of power 3 or greater, which SHOULD explain why those persons are qualified. Bearers of heroic titles (Heroes) constitute the Order of the Hero of Agora Nomic. The Heroic titles in decreasing precedence are: Grand Hero of Agora Nomic (GHAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person obviously and directly responsible for the existence of Agora and/or Nomic in general. As this title is the highest honour that Agora may bestow, a Bearer of this title OUGHT to be treated right good forever. Hero of Agora Nomic (HAN) -- This title may be awarded to any person for outstanding meritorious service to Agora above and beyond the call of duty. History: Created by Proposal 6016 (OscarMeyr), 18 December 2008 Amended(1) by cleaning (Murphy), 16 August 2009 Amended(2) by Proposal 6571 (ais523), 28 November 2009 Power changed from 2 to 3 by Proposal 6626 (Murphy), 20 February 2010 Amended(3) by Proposal 6626 (Murphy), 20 February 2010 Amended(4) by Proposal 7621 (G.), 23 February 2014 Amended(5) by Proposal 7647 (omd), 3 June 2014 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2415/0 (Power=1.5) Badges A Badge is any patent title with the word 'badge' as part of its name. A badge SHOULD be used to award multiple persons for participating in specific event of note within Agora. Any player CAN award a badge that does not yet exist to three or more persons simultaneously, with Agoran Consent. The Herald CAN award an existing badge to persons Without Objection. History: Created by Proposal 7516 (G.), 19 July 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 104/0 (Power=3) First Speaker The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish. [CFJ 1534 (called 8 March 2005): This does not mean that Michael Norrish necessarily fills the position of Speaker at the present time.] [CFJ 2154: (called 8 September 2008) The Speaker for the first game shall be Michael Norrish.] History: Initial Immutable Rule 104, Jun. 30 1993 Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1482, Mar. 15 1995 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 1727/18 (Power=1) Happy Birthday WHEREAS, in June 1993, the world's only MUD-based nomic, Nomic World, had recently collapsed; yet, many of its players enjoyed nomic and did not wish to forego such a noble pursuit; And WHEREAS, Originator Chuck Carroll therefore composed an Initial Ruleset for an email nomic, based on the Initial Rulesets of Peter Suber, inventor of Nomic, and on the Rulesets of Nomic World and other nomics, And WHEREAS, a nomic thus rose like a phoenix from the ashes of Nomic World, played on the mailing list originally set up for discussion of Nomic World, and coming into existence at June 30, 1993, 00:04:30 GMT +1200, with a message sent by FIRST SPEAKER Michael Norrish, which read, in part, "I see no reason to let this get bogged down; there are no precedents or rules that cover this situation, so I think we may as well begin directly.... Proposals for new rules are invited. In accordance with the rules, these will be published, numbered and distributed by me at my earliest convenience." And WHEREAS, this nomic began as a humble and nameless nomic, known unofficially as yoyo, after the mailing list it was played on, until its Players, much later, gave it its OFFICIAL NAME of Agora, And WHEREAS, Agora has now become the wisest, noblest, eldest, and most interesting of all active email nomics, due to the hard work and diligence of Agorans as well as the frequent advice of Agoraphobes, And WHEREAS, Agorans desire to joyously commemorate Agora's founding, BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED that Agora's Birthday is defined to be the entire day of June 30, GMT +1200, of each year. History: Created by Proposal 3513 (Chuck), Jun. 16 1997 Amended(1) by Proposal 3530 (Chuck), Jun. 30 1997, substantial Amended(2) by Proposal 3533 (General Chaos), Jul. 15 1997, substantial Amended(3) by Proposal 3543 (Harlequin), Aug. 17 1997, substantial Amended(4) by Proposal 3897 (harvel), Aug. 27 1999 Amended(5) by Proposal 3915 (harvel), Sep. 27 1999 Amended(6) by Proposal 3940 (Blob), Nov. 15 1999 Amended(7) by Proposal 4018 (Kelly), Jun. 21 2000 Amended(8) by Proposal 4099 (Murphy), Jan. 15 2001 Amended(9) by Proposal 4147 (Wes), 13 May 2001 Amended(10) by Proposal 4159 (Kelly), 5 June 2001 Amended(11) by Proposal 4367 (Steve), 23 August 2002 Amended(12) by Proposal 4376 (Steve), 6 September 2002 Amended(13) by Proposal 4486 (Michael), 24 April 2003 Amended(14) by Proposal 4743 (Manu), 5 May 2005 Amended(???) by Proposal 4839 (Goethe), 2 October 2005 Amended(???) by Proposal 4866 (Goethe), 27 August 2006 Amended(15) by Proposal 4880 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(16) by Proposal 4887 (Murphy), 22 January 2007 Amended(17) by Proposal 5364 (Murphy), 20 December 2007 Amended(18) by Proposal 7610 (G.), 22 December 2013 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 2029/0 (Power=4) Town Fountain /\ /\ / \ / \ T his Power-4 Rule (the first ever) was placed to honor The Agoran Spirit Of The Game by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look on our works, ye Marvy, but do always Dance a Powerful Dance. Hail Eris! [CFJ 1881 (called 25 January 2008): This rule does not impose an obilgation to always Dance a Powerful Dance, because "Marvy" is currently undefined.] [CFJ 1736 (called 23 August 2007): Failing to hail Eris does not necessarily constitute a violation of this rule.] History: Created by Proposal 4329 (Goethe), 9 June 2002 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Garbage Bin CFJ annotations that do not currently apply to any specific rules, but are likely to do so in the future, at which point they can be reattached. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Contracts / Binding Agreements [CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement that is not binding is thereby not a contract.] [CFJ 1901 (called 4 February 2008): An agreement that is binding is thereby a contract, even if it doesn't impose any obligations.] [CFJ 1892 (called 2 February 2008): An agreement's text can disclaim contract/binding status, thereby nullifying itself, by explicitly describing itself as a non-contract or as non-binding.] [CFJ 1872 (called 15 January 2008): Being a player is not a prerequisite for becoming party to a contract.] [CFJ 1796 (called 14 November 2007): If a person announces that e agrees to be bound by a particular text as a contract, without saying who this agreement is with, and the contract text does not regulate who can become a party to it, then any person can become a party to the contract by announcement.] [CFJ 1455 (called 14 March 2003): A contract cannot cause an otherwise-insignificant action by a non-party to constitute consent to be bound by the contract.] [CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): A contract is null and void if the courts do not have sufficient evidence that a person's contract-related rights (in Rule 101) are not being infringed. This includes evidence that the party to the contract has reviewed the rules and has direct prior knowledge of the fora.] [CFJ 1686 (called 7 June 2007): A person who is not a party to an agreement categorically cannot violate it.] [CFJ 1752 (called 28 September 2007): Deregistration does not implicitly cause the ex-player to leave a contract.] [CFJ 1842 (called 20 December 2007): A contract may use retroactive operations internally for the purposes of determining obligations of the parties, but such legal fictions do not affect Agora as a whole.] [CFJ 1836 (called 18 December 2007): A contract cannot have retroactive effect.] [CFJ 1843 (called 20 December 2007): Becoming a party to a contract cannot occur retroactively, for the purposes of determining justiciability of the contract.] [CFJ 1816 (called 2 December 2007): A contract is not generally able to define terms used by the rules.] [CFJ 1819 (called 3 December 2007): A contract is not able to create new ways of winning the game.] [CFJ 1835 (called 18 December 2007): An authorisation granted by a party in a contract takes precedence over a unilateral statement by that party that purports to cancel that authorisation.] [CFJ 1921 (called 2 April 2008): Agreements with informal phrasing can be considered contracts, but only when made in a medium where lying is against the Rules (i.e. a public forum).] [CFJ 2302 (called 7 December 2008): The scope of the text of a contract is limited compared to that of a rule; in particular, a contract cannot cause a paradox by setting undecidable conditions on joining it.] [CFJ 2101 (called 20 July 2008): Consent to join a binding agreement implies consent to join later agreements created through currently existing rule-defined processes.] [CFJ 2220 (called 11 October 2008): Consent to join a binding agreement may be an effect of another action, such as joining a foreign nomic, as long as the action is triggered by free will and the actor is reasonably aware of the effect.] [CFJ 2246 (called 30 October 2008): Joining a contract does not imply consent to be acted on behalf of simply because the contract might be amended in the future to allow it.] [CFJ 2264 (called 11 November 2008): The right to refuse to become party to an agreement does not apply to amendments to existing agreements.] [CFJ 2410 (called 11 March 2009): Consent to join a binding agreement may be given privately.] [CFJ 2761 (called 7 February 2010): The termination of a contract through processes it explicitly envisions (including a rule-defined mechanism, if the contract is intended to be governed under Agoran law) is akin to a natural death, and does not generally constitute a restriction of its rights as a person.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Truthfulness [CFJ 1739 (called 29 August 2007): A quotation can result in a violation of Rule 2215 (then 2149), depending on the context of the rest of the message.] [CFJ 1849 (called 21 December 2007): Violation of Rule 2215 (then 2149) can occur without any intent to misdirect.] [CFJ 1887 (called 30 January 2008): Publicly making the statement "This statement is a lie." would most likely be a violation of rule 2215 (then 2149), because it is logically indeterminate and so making it would not be telling the truth, and its logical indeterminacy would be understood by any reasonable player.] [CFJ 2103 (called 21 July 2008): Making the statement "I lie." is not a violation of Rule 2215 if the author is lying down.] [CFJ 2399 (called 4 March 2009): Even if a type of behavior is likely to cause false statements to be accidentally published, a person does not violate Rule 2215 by engaging in it if there is no specific statement e believes is false.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Miscellaneous [CFJ 2276a (called 20 November 2008): When a rule allows, as an action, a quantity to be increased which is defined elsewhere as a fixed value, and that action is taken, the rule thereby redefines the quantity as one more than it would otherwise be.] [CFJ 1856 (called 29 December 2007): The requirement that "no interpretation of Agoran law may abridge ... a person's defined rights" means that it must be feasible, given the practical limits of Agoran evidence-gathering, to remain reasonably sure that a person's defined rights are not being limited.] [CFJ 2361 (called 26 January 2009): The withholding of a reward for doing something may or may not constitute a penalty for not doing it, depending on the circumstances.] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- ====================================================================== Highest Rule ID number ever assigned: Rule 2491 Last Ruleset Ratification: Short Logical Ruleset of 7 Apr 2014, ratified on 1 May 2014 END OF THE FULL LOGICAL RULESET