CFJ 1155

    Honourary Players of Agora are considered Registered Players of
    Agora by entities which exist entirely outside the Agora Nomic


Called by:           The Colonel

Judge:               Michael
Judgement:           DISMISSED

Judge selection:

Eligible:            Annabel, Beefurabi, Blob, Chuck, Crito, elJefe,
                     Elysion, harvel, Kolja, Michael, Murphy,
                     Palnatoke, Peekee, Wes

Not eligible:
Caller:              The Colonel
Barred:              -
Had their turn:      -
Already served:      -
Defaulted:           -
By request:          -
On Hold:             Lee, Oerjan, Steve



Called by The Colonel:                08 Aug 1999 11:14:51 -0700
Assigned to Michael:                  10 Aug 1999 06:55:11 -0700


Caller's Arguments:

I think this should be ruled false.

Rule 869/7 (Registered Players) says:

    A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.
    A person is Registered to play when e sends a message to the
    Public Forum requesting Registration; this Rule defers to Rules
    which would prevent such a Registration.

The Honourary Player rule says:

    Honourary Players are not considered to be Players with respect
    to the Rules or any other Nomic Entity within Agora Nomic, but
    shall be considered Players of Agora Nomic to all persons,
    organizations, nomics and other entities which exist entirely
    outside of the Agora Nomic Rules.

These seem to imply that Honourary Players of Agora, to the outside
world, are Players, but are not Registered.


Evidence attached by the Caller:



Judge's Arguments:

I dismiss this statement on the grounds that it does not relate
to a matter relevant to the rules.
(See R1565, para 2, clause iii.)

Rule 1904 notwithstanding (and see below for doubts on its
wording), where human beings are concerned (as opposed to virtual
constructions of the law), the law can not make a statement about
their behaviour and have it be true by fiat.  If the statement
above was "The rules require external entities to consider
Honourary Players as Registered Players of Agora" then one might
be more inclined to find in favour.

The crux of the matter is that even though the rules can probably
be said to require this consideration, this requirement can not
bring it about.  Indeed, it could not bring it about even if the
rule were expressing some constraint on actual Players.

As it is, the statement above is entirely a matter of fact (i.e.,
akin to "The world's longest river is the Nile.")  and not a
matter of law at all.

I also have serious misgivings about the second paragraph of Rule
1904 "Honourary Players", which states in part that "[Honourary
Players]... shall be considered Players of Agora Nomic *to* all
persons, organizations, nomics and other entities which exist
entirely outside of the Agora Nomic Rules".  (Emphasis with *'s

The normal preposition used to indicate the subject in sentences
in the passive voice is "by".  Thus, "The fish was eaten by
Sarah", or "I was made to realise my mistake by the clerk".
Indeed, it is this usage that appears in the statement of the CFJ
above.  However, Rule 1904 uses "to".  What sense can we make of

There are two possibilities:
  i) we decide to ignore that provision of the rule entirely on
     the grounds that its sense can not be determined; or
 ii) we attempt to deduce some sense from it, and hope that
     judicial precedent will carry some weight

Having to interpret legislation written in the passive voice
doesn't make life any easier, but I suggest that the following
interpretation is possible if we allow option ii) above:
  * the subject of the "consider action" is Agora and/or its
    ruleset considered as some sort of collective entity
  * the use of "to" suggests that this entity should answer the
    question "As what do you consider Honorary Players?"
    depending on who is "asking" it.  If an external entity asks
    the ruleset/Agora about an Honourary Player, this rule
    requires us to say that they are a Registered Player;
    otherwise, for our internal purposes, they are not Players at

I am not particularly fond of this interpretation and would be
happy to see us adopt possibility i) above instead.

In any case, my judgement stands: the statement is dismissed.