============================== CFJ 1694 ==============================
Gunner Nomic 2.0 has allowed Agora unrestricted access to change its
Judge: Primo Corporation
Called by BobTHJ: 22 Jun 2007 01:18:15 GMT
Assigned to Primo Corporation: 27 Jun 2007 21:28:48 GMT
Judged TRUE by Primo Corporation: 16 Jul 2007 15:37:16 GMT
Appealed by Zefram: 19 Jul 2007 09:54:12 GMT
I present as evidence the current ruleset of Gunner Nomic 2.0 found here:
Judge Primo Corporation's Arguments:
I hereby judge TRUE. While the Gunner Nomic ruleset requires each
rule-change to be voted on, it does not specify that the results of
such a vote must be enforced in a majority-rules fashion. Therefore,
it would appear that at the time this CFJ was called, votes on
rule-changes passed down from Agora would be ignored, allowing the
rule-change to have full effect.
Presently, this is now a moot point as Gunner Nomic 2.0 no longer
satisfies the conditions to be a Protectorate of Agora.
Appellant Zefram's Arguments:
Gunner Nomic 2.0's rules that allegedly let it qualify as a protectorate
358. Agoran Protectorate
358.1 Gunner Nomic 2.0 endeavors to be a Protectorate of Agora
358.1(a) It submits to Agora as its benevolent protector
358.1(b) It allows Agora unrestricted access to make changes to
The ruleset contained no explicit provisions to amend the rules at
Agora's behest. The "It allows ..." statement could be interpreted as
implicitly implementing changes that Agora expressly desired, if there
were a definition of what constituted such an expression of desire, but
there is no provision so defining. In the absence of such a definition
there is at the very least hopeless unclarity in any attempt to make
the protectorate provision self-implementing.
It might be possible to dispense with some of the explication that I
promote if R2147 defined a concrete procedure for the modification of
a protectorate's ruleset that a protectorate were required to interface
with. But R2147 is weak and handwavey, not actually specifying anything
about the mechanism to use. The obligation therefore falls on the
protectorate to define the concrete mechanism. Gunner Nomic 2.0's
ruleset utterly fails to do so. It is equally weak and handwavey.
There is nothing at all, in either Agora or Gunner Nomic 2.0, specifying
the mechanism by which Agora, in its role as protector of Gunner Nomic
2.0, can make changes to Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset. Waving one's hands
is not a substitute for specific rule text. The fact that Agoran rule
2147 and Gunneran rule 358.1(b) wave their hands equally vigorously,
and in exactly the same way, does not help them to interface.
This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo
Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification
of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal satisfied
the requirement of unrestricted access to modify. However, that logic
only applies because Primo Corporation's charter is a R1742 agreement,
governed by the rules of Agora.
Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset is a binding agreement, according to its
rule 357.2, but it is not governed by the rules of Agora. It was
formed independently from Agora, with no intention that it be subject
to modification by the operation of Agoran law. Nothing in the Gunneran
ruleset makes it adjudicable under Agoran contract law.
The judge in CFJ 1704 tacitly accepted the caller's argument that
some concrete mechanism must be in place for Agora to modify a
protectorate. Primo had a concrete mechanism inherently in place due
to the circumstances of its formation. Gunner Nomic 2.0 lacks those
special circumstances, and so must define a concrete procedure itself.
It does not do so, and so it has not allowed Agora unrestricted access
to change its ruleset.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner
in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it
Another question, addressed only tangentially so far, is whether
the Protectorate's rule allowing Agora to make changes is made
ineffective by other rules of the Protectorate. Investigating
that question now, I find the following:
* Other Gunneran rules regulated either resolutions (the Gunneran
equivalent of proposals), or rule changes in general. The former
were inapplicable to Agoran proposals by definition; the latter
failed to impose any restrictions that would prevent Gunneran
rule 358.1(b) from doing what it said it did.
* Similarly, other Primo charter sections (the Primo equivalent of
rules) regulate issues (the Primo equivalent of proposals), but
none of them regulate rule changes in general.
Gunner's current rules and resolution history are currently located at