Index ← 1626 CFJ 1627 1628 → text
==============================  CFJ 1627  ==============================

    the text in exhibit A, if enacted into a Rule, would conflict with
    Rule 101


Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  Maud
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Zefram:                       29 Apr 2007 07:52:30 GMT
Assigned to Maud:                       29 Apr 2007 14:11:22 GMT
Judged FALSE by Maud:                   05 May 2007 03:08:50 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Rule 101 is designed to protect persons' right to judgement, and to review
agreements.  To allow the arbitrary refusal of a CFJ would conflict
with R101(iii), as it severely limits the right to invoke judgement.
To allow the arbitrary refusal of proposals would mean the proposal
process could not be considered by any reasonable person as protective
of a player's rights in R101(v), as it is far beyond the scope of the
prima facie considerations in R1503.


Caller's Evidence:

Exhibit A

       Murphy, OscarMeyr, and Quazie are Oligarchs.

       An Oligarch may refuse a CFJ by announcement.  A refused CFJ
       ceases to be a CFJ.

       An Oligarch may refuse a proposal by announcement.  A refused
       proposal ceases to be a proposal.


Rule 101/5 (Power=3)
Agoran Rights and Privileges

      The rules may define persons as possessing specific rights or
      privileges.  Be it hereby proclaimed that no binding agreement
      or interpretation of Agoran law may abridge, reduce, limit, or
      remove a person's defined rights.  A person's defined privileges
      are assumed to exist in the absence of an explicit, binding
      agreement to the contrary.  This rule takes precedence over any
      rule which would allow restrictions of a person's rights or

         i. Every person has the privilege of doing what e wilt.

        ii. Every player has the right to perform an action which is
            not regulated.

       iii. Every person has the right to invoke judgement, appeal a
            judgement, and to initiate an appeal on a sentencing or
            judicial order binding em.

        iv. Every person has the right to refuse to become party to
            a binding agreement.  The absence of a person's explicit,
            willful consent shall be considered a refusal.

         v. Every person has the right to not be considered bound by
            an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, which e has
            not had the reasonable opportunity to review.

        vi. Every player has the right of participation in the fora.

       vii. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
            once for any single action or inaction.

      viii. Every player besides the Speaker has the right to
            deregister rather than continue to play.

      Please treat Agora right good forever.


Rule 1503/6 (Power=3)
Rules Violations

      In general, the Rules shall be adjudicated as if the Rules were
      a binding agreement between all Players, entered into by every
      player as a part of becoming a Player.  An actual or alleged
      Rule violation shall be treated as the violation of a binding
      agreement to be bound by the Rule or Rules in question.

      The proposal, fora, and registration processes shall, prima
      facie, be considered to be protective of a Player's rights and
      privileges with respect to making and changing the agreement to
      be bound by the rules.

      Other rules may further differentiate the treatment of rules
      violations from the treatment of violations of other types of


Judge Maud's Arguments:

The Caller has argued that the text in exhibit A, if enacted into a
rule, would conflict with rule 101 (iii) and rule 101 (v).  The Court
takes it to be clear that the text would not reasonably be considered
to conflict with any other clauses of rule 101; Goethe mentions rule
101 (iv), but it seems clear that e intends to refer to rule 101
(iii).  It remains to consider these two clauses.

I find that the text would not conflict with rule 101 (iii).  This
clause protects the right to invoke judgement.  Invocation sets a
process into motion, but does not guarantee that the process will
complete successfully.  Goethe's image of a king who uses his guards
to prevent hearing any evidence of a dispute may be distasteful to us,
but there is nothing in the current rule 101 to prevent something like
that from occurring.  It is unfair to the English language to
reinterpret ``invoke'' as having a broader meaning than it actually
has in order to derive a conclusion one desires.  The proposed rule
does not restrict in any way players' ability to call for judgement;
it only permits their invocations to go unheeded.

I also find that the text would not conflict with rule 101 (v).  As
stated in a proto-judgement, the text does not bind players to new
agreements; rather, it allows a junta legally but unjustly to filter
which proposals may be put up for vote.  Since this restricts the
creation of new binding agreements rather than directly imposing new
ones, it is not in conflict with rule 101.

I therefore enter a judgement of FALSE on CFJ 1627.

I have been implicitly asked to propose and defend more of a theory of
rights than is actually necessary to decide the truth of the
statement.  I do not consider it good practice to do so.  It is better
for us to keep our Agoran theory of rights as loose as we can for as
long as we can than to pin it down to a theory drafted in seven days
to deal with one issue.