============================== CFJ 3362 ==============================
A party can be a nomic.
Called by Walker: 04 Jul 2013 23:47:51 GMT
Assigned to G.: 08 Jul 2013 17:14:35 GMT
Judged FALSE by G.: 08 Jul 2013 18:05:43 GMT
Reconsideration requested by G.: 09 Jul 2013 17:04:28 GMT
Assigned to G.: 09 Jul 2013 17:04:28 GMT
G. recused: 19 Jul 2013 14:40:05 GMT
Assigned to OscarMeyr: 23 Jul 2013 17:09:55 GMT
Judged TRUE by OscarMeyr: 25 Jul 2013 16:38:22 GMT
A nomic is a system of rules that provides means for itself to
be amended arbitrarily. Nomics can be games, micronations,
simulations, and/or sovereign states.
A party member
CAN amend eir party's constitution by announcement when
authorised to do so by eir party's constitution.
This case hinges on whether a nomic really "provides means for
itself", or whether those means are provided by the Rules. I think the
correct interpretation is that the Rules provide means for a party to
provide means to amend itself, and therefore that a party is a nomic.
Judge G.'s Arguments:
Agora explicitly gives two mechanisms for amending party constitutions:
w/o objection and by announcement (R2410), thus precluding other methods
(as constitutions are tracked by the Returning Officer and therefore
regulated). In particular, if a party's constitution purported to allow
amendments to take effect via a non-Agoran forum, Agora would not
recognize these changes as taking effect until Agoran PF announcement.
Contrast this to a Protectorate, in which Agora would be allowed to make
amendments, but via a mechanism described by the Protectorate, and the
Protectorate's rules would *not* be tracked or otherwise regulated by
If members of a party claimed that a change to the constitution had
taken effect outside of the Agoran PF, then it might spawn a new nomic
with the claimed constitution, but that new nomic would not be the same
as the Agora-recognized party, and would lose any privileges or duties
that it had as an Agoran party. See the precedent of CFJ 1517 and the
history Claustronomic for an example of this, wherein a divergence
between a Contest's state as viewed by Agora versus as viewed by its
regulations caused it to cease to be a Contest, but it remained (or
perhaps became at the time of divergence) a separate, active nomic,
while it lost its Agoran Contest ability to award Agoran points.
So as a party, as defined by R2410, could not arbitrarily amend itself
to create new change mechanisms that would actually take effect (i.e.
be recognized by Agora), a party cannot a nomic. FALSE.
Gratuitous Arguments by Fool:
Now just a darn minute.
R2410 allows a party constitution to amend itself arbitrarily. The fact that
these amendments are mediated via R2410 and player announcement does not make
it not a Nomic.
Precedent: PerlNomic (and thanks to woggle for educating me about PerlNomic
while I was heckling Ambassador Abuse players on IRC). PerlNomic changes were
mediated by code. So by the above logic, since PerlNomic could not legislate
that its changes would not be mediated by code, it was not a Nomic. But it was
recognised as a Nomic.
And when you think about it, no Nomic compels its own rule following. All
Nomics are implicitly mediated by something, and this is not subject to
amendment. Usually this is by its players directly, but there are other
Therefore I intend, with two support (and without five Elder objections) to
appeal. I call on the appellate court to substitute a verdict of GUILTY, and
suggest the death penalty.
Gratuitous Arguments by Fool:
Agreements, even if enforced within a nomic, can outlive it
on occasion. It's possible to imagine a Party that has other
extra-Agoran mechanisms for effective self-amendment (perhaps via
referring to some external constitution). You can also imagine one that
tries to hide its details from Agora, and to resist Agoran change
(perhaps via retroactively self-amending if the rules try to change the
way the agreement operates).
Gratuitous Arguments by omd:
fwiw, I agree that "splintering off" doesn't count, but I think that a
system of rules that exists in the context of a specific legal
framework can still "provide means for itself" through that framework.
Even if the only mechanism for amendment is an unalterable one
provided by that framework, the system of rules is providing a means
for itself to be amended by virtue of choosing to exist in a framework
that provides such a mechanism. Although it is traditional for nomics
to have rules that provide their own interpretation and be
self-sufficient, I don't think that Rule 2368's definition of nomic
requires them to do so.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Mainly, the sticking point is in the broadness of R2368's "arbitrary",
coupled with the fact that the mechanism CAN be changed within Agora,
but CAN'T be changed by the Party, so from the point of view of Agora,
there is at least one thing thing that CAN be changed by Agora, but
CANNOT be changed by the party, therefore it fails the arbitrary
rules change test.
(This is different than relying of the laws of physics, which are
outside the bounds of any nomic).
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
Sorry to keep on about this, but here's another thought:
The traditional win condition: "omd CAN make arbitrary rule changes
by announcement." Now, this allows arbitrary rules changes, even
though it specifies a fixed mechanism. Cool, a win.
But the key is, omd CAN also change that mechanism by using the
mechanism, so any arbitrary change can be made.
However, the following would NOT satisfy said win condition: "omd CAN
make arbitrary rule changes by announcement, but not to this sentence".
That would clearly not satisfy said win condition, as the exception
makes it no longer arbitrary.
The Agoran method for the Party making constitutional changes is
similarly out of reach of the party, so it fails the test of "arbitrary"
as Agora has used it specifically with respect to rules-document changes.
Request for reconsideration by :
Having re-read through the arguments on both sides, I do think there's
something unsatisfying about my judgement.
As its judge, I file a motion to reconsider CFJ 3362.
Judge OscarMeyr's Arguments:
I disagree with H. Judge G.'s claim that R2410 regulates parties in the way
that CFJ 1517 held contests were regulated. I draw this from my reading of
R2410, that the Returning Officer reports each party's constitution, and is
presumed informed of changes because amendments are handled "by announcement"
and "without objection from another member." (cite: R2410/0, para 3, more than
what the Caller submitted in evidence)
Aside: As best I can tell, "by announcement" is presently defined in
R1728/32. I don't see that rule saying the announcement must be ttPF, but I
believe this requirement is derived from 18 years of game practice.
With regard to H. Judge G.'s first gratuitous argument, e does have a point
that Agora could place limits on how arbitrary a party's constitutional
amendment can be.
So I generally agree with Fool's first gratuitous argument, that under the
current ruleset a party can be a nomic if its constitution sets it up that
And as for Fool's second gratuitous argument, I have heard rumors that past
Agoran-defined groups continued to exist even after the defining Rules were
repealed. [Rumors are ephemeral traitors. If you are in possession of a
rumor, please report it to Agoran Security and remove it from your memory.
Agora is your friend.]
So as reconsidering Judge, I find TRUE. And in true Agoran tradition, I
encourage someone to make a nomic party.