==============================  CFJ 1328  ==============================

    The AgoraEx exists in the eyes of the Rules.


Caller:                                 G.

Judge:                                  Syllepsis
Judgement:                              DISMISS

Appeal:                                 1328a
Decision:                               REASSIGN

Judge:                                  Steve
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by G.:                           16 Nov 2001 22:42:22 GMT
Assigned to Syllepsis:                  19 Nov 2001 03:30:06 GMT
Dismissed by Syllepsis:                 20 Nov 2001 20:54:22 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      21 Nov 2001 19:52:40 GMT
Appealed by Crito:                      21 Nov 2001 19:58:51 GMT
Appealed by root:                       21 Nov 2001 20:02:02 GMT
Appeal 1328a:                           21 Nov 2001 20:02:02 GMT
Appealed by Maud:                       22 Nov 2001 05:36:32 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   23 Nov 2001 09:47:14 GMT
Assigned to Steve:                      25 Nov 2001 06:28:07 GMT
Judged TRUE by Steve:                   03 Dec 2001 13:13:44 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The AgoraEx is a collective name for a set of transactions, and promised
transactions, performed by the Player Lindrum before e became Dissolute
(and thus the entity Lindrum has lost eir Executor).  There is a strong
Agoran Custom embodied in many specific Rules that entities that lose
their Executor cease to exist.

One one hand, as far as the Rules are concerned, it never existed as an
defined "entity" with an Executor.  What happens when a non-existent
entity ceases to exist?

The alternate view is that it existed (and exists) as defined by the
"binding agreement" clause of the Rules, and some of these Binding
Agreements still stand.  But the extent of the agreement, and whom the
agreement is with, is rather amorphous.

I can try to provide past materials and postings concerning the AgoraEx as
evidence, but I humbly await the request and discussion to see what
materials are relevant (much of this material is a few months old).  A
useful (admissable?) resource is the web page maintained by Lindrum at:



Judge Syllepsis's Arguments:

I dismiss CFJ 1328 as the Rules have no eyes.


Appellant Taral's Arguments:

On Wed, Nov 21, 2001 at 04:04:53PM +1100, Steve Gardner wrote:
> Syllepsis wrote:
> >
> >I dismiss CFJ 1328 as the Rules have no eyes.
> If you're going to insist that CFJs cannot employ metaphoric language in
> framing their Statements, you're going to make life unnecessarily
> difficult. I think it's clear what the Statement is trying to establish,
> and I think the CFJ should have been judged on its merits.

Agreed. I call for the Appeal of CFJ 1328.


Judge Steve's Arguments:

I'll start with some preliminary clearing of the undergrowth: firstly,
the Statement refers to the "AgoraEx" where "AgorEx" is clearly
intended, and I shall use the latter term throughout my Judgement.
Secondly, I reject the original Judge Syllepsis' dismissal of the CFJ as
being overly literal. While it is literally true that the Rules have no
eyes, I do not think that the metaphorical language used in the
Statement presents any serious obstacle to interpreting it. I intend to
interpret the Statement as claiming that that the AgorEx exists as a
matter of Agoran law.

What is it to exist as a matter of Agoran law? I find a practical
approach to such questions to be the most useful. So I will say that an
entity exists as a matter of Agoran law if the Rules, directly or
indirectly, refer to the entity, or govern its activity in some way,
either by enabling, permitting or requiring it to act in some fashion,
or by enabling, permitting or requiring other entities to act upon it.

This definition recognises the existence as a matter of Agoran law of a
broad class of entities. Some of them (probably the majority) are
brought into existence by the Rules themselves: into this category fall
entities such as the Bank, the various Currencies, the Office of
Promotor, all the Groups and Contests, the Map of Arcadia, and so on.
But it would be a mistake to think that these exhaust the list of
entities whose existence is recognised by the Rules. The Rules also
recognise the existence of entities that exist independently of the
Rules. Foremost in this category are, of course, the Players, but here
we can find also the media designated by the Registrar as Public Fora,
Peter Suber and Douglas Hofstadter (recognised as Heroes), former Player
Chuck Carroll, perhaps the town of Greenwich (since the Rules refer to
Greenwich Mean Time), and in times past, other Nomics such as
InterNomic. I shall argue that the AgorEx also falls into this latter
category. It is an entity which is not brought into existence by the
Rules, but whose activities are in part governed by the Rules, and whose
existence is therefore recognised by the Rules.

The argument for this conclusion is straightforward. According to its
Prospectus (at http://www.panix.com/~lindrum/agorex/prospectus.html),
the AgorEx "is a financial company operating within the game of Agora
Nomic." Its direct goal "is to profit from successful trading, and from
commissions charged for other financial services." In the pursuit of
these goals, the AgorEx, in the person of Director Lindrum, entered into
various agreements with other Players, most commonly to act as a broker
and middleman in the exchange of Currencies.

There can be little doubt that these agreements were entered into "with
the intention that they be binding under the Rules", in the language of
R1742. We already have judicial precedent to this effect from CFJ 1325,
where Judge Goethe held that the AgorEx Trading Accounts (listed at
http://www.panix.com/~lindrum/agorex/accounts.html) constituted
sufficient evidence of the existence of agreements binding under the
Rules between Lindrum and the holders of those accounts.

More broadly, it is my view that the opening statement of the AgorEx
Prospectus (quoted above) that the AgorEx is intended to operate *within
the game of Agora* shows that all of the provisions of the Prospectus
which are concerned with the relationship between the AgorEx and the
Players can be construed as agreements between the Director (Lindrum)
and other Players. Disputes arising from any alleged breach of these
agreements can therefore be the subject of legal action brought under
the provisions of R1742, with the consequences set out in that Rule.
This is enough to establish that the Rules indirectly govern the
activity of the AgorEx, and so recognise the existence of the AgorEx as
a matter of Agoran law.

I therefore Judge that the Statement is TRUE.