Index ← 1706 CFJ 1707 1708 → text
==============================  CFJ 1707  ==============================

    B Nomic met rule 2147's requirements at the time of BobTHJ's message
    on 2007-06-14 in which e claimed to make B Nomic a protectorate.


Caller:                                 Zefram
Barred:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  Human Point Two
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by Zefram:                       20 Jul 2007 16:29:51 GMT
Assigned to Human Point Two:            20 Jul 2007 16:33:59 GMT
Judged TRUE by Human Point Two:         23 Jul 2007 00:56:45 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

This CFJ is about the efficacy of a statement in a foreign nomic's
ruleset along the lines of "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access
to make changes to its ruleset.".  The same issue has arisen regarding
Primo Corporation and Gunner Nomic 2.0, but in each of those cases it
is complicated by the nomic being, or possibly being, a partnership,
or its ruleset possibly being subject to Agoran contract law.  In the
case of B Nomic these complications do not occur, so this CFJ can judge
the protectorate issue in isolation.

The core of my argument is that the statement in question, because it
doesn't actually supply a concrete procedure for Agora to modify the
ruleset, fails to actually allow it.  I made this argument when calling
CFJ 1704 and when appealing CFJ 1694, the cases that suffer complications,
and I won't repeat all the detail here.

Regarding precedents: CFJ 1704 addresses a similar issue, but its
judgement (AIUI) relies on the constitutional status of Primo as an
agreement governed by Agoran law.  I interpret judge Murphy's arguments as
tacitly accepting that there isn't anything else allowing Agora to modify
the Primo charter, so that appears to be a precedent (albeit in obiter
dicta) favouring a FALSE judgement in the present CFJ.  (Although upon
rereading that judgement now I find it less clear than I recall.)

The statement of CFJ 1694 is such that it ought to constitute a
precedent on this issue, but the judge didn't actually address the
issue of modification mechanisms.  E instead looked only at internal
issues within Gunner Nomic 2.0.  The caller didn't raise the question
of the vague enabling rule, so the judge's omission is understandable.
My call for appeal in that case raises the issue.  A decision in this
CFJ, which has less complicating baggage, should assist with resolution
of that appeal.


Judge Human Point Two's Arguments:

The statement "This nomic allows Agora unrestricted access to make
changes to its ruleset" is reasonably equivalent to "This nomic's
rules change whenever the rules of Agora say they do".  Thus, it
declared B Nomic as governed by Agoran law (at least for the purpose
of changing B Nomic's rules), and provided a mechanism for the process
(Agora's mechanism, the adoption of a proposal with AI >= 2 that says
it changes B Nomic's rules, was incorporated by reference).