==============================  CFJ 1697  ==============================

    Since the repeal of Gunner Nomic 2.0 rule 357.3 Gunner Nomic no
    longer satisfies the conditions of a Player of Agora.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 BobTHJ

Judge:                                  Pineapple Partnership
Judgement:                              TRUE

========================================================================

History:

Called by BobTHJ:                       02 Jul 2007 05:07:28 GMT
Assigned to Pineapple Partnership:      18 Jul 2007 20:24:48 GMT
Judged TRUE by Pineapple Partnership:   20 Jul 2007 11:14:39 GMT
Appealed by Murphy:                     20 Jul 2007 13:18:59 GMT
Appealed by root:                       20 Jul 2007 15:49:39 GMT

========================================================================

Judge Pineapple Partnership's Arguments:

First I'll establish what the relevant rules of Gunner Nomic 2.0
actually were.  Gunneran resolution R16 enacted the rules

      357.2 The rules of this nomic form a binding agreement among
      its players
      357.3 Gunner Nomic 2.0 may incur obligations, rights, and privileges
      under the rules of other nomics in which it participates. The
      Players shall act on behalf of Gunner Nomic 2.0 as specified in
      this ruleset to satisfy such obligations and to exercise such
      rights and privileges.

Gunneran resolution R19 then attempted some repeals, in the semi-coherent
form

      motion repeal 375.3 and 358.1 (b)and any other rule imposing
      obligatiions upon Gunner Nomic 2.0

The reference to "375.3", not an extant rule at that time, is evidently a
typo on "357.3", raising the question of whether Gunneran rule 357.3 has
actually been repealed.  The clause "any other rule imposing obligatiions
upon Gunner Nomic 2.0" might cover it, but the rule doesn't speak of
imposing obligations on Gunner Nomic 2.0, but rather of the possibility
of incurring such obligations.  This is all very unclear, but I'll defer
on this point to the Gunnerans, who do not include rule 357.3 in their
publication of the current ruleset.

I tentatively conclude that rule 357.3 has indeed been repealed.
I therefore won't consider how to interpret a "since" qualifier that
refers to a non-existent event.

CFJ 1696 concerns whether Gunner Nomic 2.0 is a partnership.  At the time
the CFJ was called, the term "partnership" was defined by rule 2145/1,
by the clause

      A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two
      or more persons is known as a Partnership.

and the further explication

      Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly
      assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto the
      parties of that agreement to be a non-natural person.

This essentially references the concept of partnership that was developed
by earlier CFJs.  With the explicit legislation of R2145, the uncertainty
regarding the earlier CFJs doesn't apply here, per CFJ 1691 at least.

With the repeal of Gunneran rule 357.3, Gunner Nomic 2.0 clearly does not
devolve its obligations onto anyone, under Gunneran law.  This points
towards Gunner Nomic 2.0 not being a partnership at the time this CFJ
was called, and hence towards a judgement of TRUE.

However, it is not the status of obligations under Gunneran law that
matters here.  Per CFJ 1687, to qualify as a partnership under Agoran law
the devolution of legal obligations must be adjudicable within Agoran law.
A contract governed by a foreign legal system has no status in Agoran
law for this purpose.

The question arises of whether Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset is an agreement
governed by Agoran law, and the answer is an easy no.  Gunneran rule
357.2 states that the rules are a binding agreement, but does not state
by which legal system that agreement is governed.  Neither that rule nor
any other cites Agoran law as the basis for adjudicating Gunneran rules.
Nor do the rules cite any other legal system for this purpose.  Looking at
the circumstances of the formation of Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset, and its
internal conventions, it is strongly apparent that the Gunneran ruleset is
intended to be governed only by its own processes, those of Gunneran law.

Thus not only was Gunner Nomic 2.0 not an Agoran partnership at the time
that CFJ 1696 was called, it *was never a partnership at all*.

The "no longer" part of the statement of CFJ 1696 is in these
circumstances problematic.  To say that the statement is true not only
says that Gunner Nomic 2.0 is not presently a partnership but also carries
the connotation that it previously was.  To say that the statement is
false carries the opposite denotation but the same connotation.  It is
therefore tempting to DISMISS.  However, having consulted a dictionary
I have determined that "no longer satisfies" should be interpreted as
"henceforth does not satisfy".  I find that the statement formally says
nothing about the partnershiphood of Gunner Nomic 2.0 prior to the repeal
of Gunneran rule 357.3.  I therefore judge CFJ 1696 TRUE, and repudiate
the statement's connotation that Gunner Nomic 2.0 previously met the
conditions of partnershiphood.

Concerning CFJ 1697, I have a problem with its strange wording "conditions
of a Player of Agora".  Unlike partnershiphood, playerhood is not
defined as an emergent property of entities meeting certain criteria.
Rather, playerhood is a first-class property, governed by rule 869 and
other rules.  I shall interpret "satisfies the conditions of a Player
of Agora" as "is a Player of Agora".

In the situation envisioned by the statement of CFJ 1696, the loss of
partnershiphood (and therefore of personhood) would not deprive Gunner
Nomic 2.0 of playerhood.  The rules do not require that all players be
persons; the main restriction on playerhood of non-persons is that a
non-person cannot use the voluntary registration process of rule 869
to become a player.  The final paragraph of rule 869 envisions there
being players who have ceased to be persons, and allows them to be
deregistered easily, but it does not automatically deregister them upon
loss of personhood.  So in that situation the statement of CFJ 1697
would be false.

However, because Gunner Nomic 2.0 was never a partnership, it was never
a person, and therefore could not register via the R869 procedure.
Gunner Nomic 2.0 has never been a player of Agora.  Applying the same
interpretation of "no longer" as I used for CFJ 1696, I judge CFJ
1697 TRUE.

========================================================================

Judge Pineapple Partnership's Evidence:

Gunner Nomic 2.0 resolution R16
Inter-nomic Relations

      357. Establishing Identity
      357.1 This Nomic shall be named Gunner Nomic 2.0
      357.2 The rules of this nomic form a binding agreement among
      its players
      357.3 Gunner Nomic 2.0 may incur obligations, rights, and privileges
      under the rules of other nomics in which it participates. The
      Players shall act on behalf of Gunner Nomic 2.0 as specified in
      this ruleset to satisfy such obligations and to exercise such
      rights and privileges.

      358. Agoran Protectorate
      358.1 Gunner Nomic 2.0 endeavors to be a Protectorate of Agora
      Nomic.
      358.1(a) It submits to Agora as its benevolent protector
      358.1(b) It allows Agora unrestricted access to make changes to
      its ruleset.

      Upon passage of this resolution, BobTHJ shall request that Gunner
      Nomic 2.0 be made an Agoran Protectorate by posting to the Agoran
      public forum.

      Upon passage of this resolution, BobTHJ shall register Gunner
      Nomic as a player in Agora Nomic.

Gunner Nomic 2.0 resolution R19

      motion repeal 375.3 and 358.1 (b)and any other rule imposing
      obligatiions upon Gunner Nomic 2.0

      360. Only an active player, or the Scorekeeper acting as agent of
      an active player may make changes to the Current Rule Set

Rule 2145/1 (Power=1)
Partnerships

      A non-natural person that is created by an Agreement between two
      or more persons is known as a Partnership. A Partnership comes
      into existence with the initiation of the Agreement that creates
      it, and it ceases to exist when that Agreement is terminated.
      The persons who are party to the Agreement may change during the
      course of that Agreement (if the Agreement allows for it)
      without disrupting the existence of the Partnership as a person
      as long as that Agreement remains in effect.

      Agora recognizes an agreement that implicitly or explicitly
      assigns its rights, obligations, and responsibilities onto the
      parties of that agreement to be a non-natural person.

========================================================================

Appellant Murphy's Arguments:

I appeal the judgement of CFJ 1697, and request that the Board of
Appeals remand the case to the Pineapple Partnership for further
consideration.

The decision of TRUE depends on the interpretation that Gunner was
never a player of Agora, which was argued as follows:

> However, it is not the status of obligations under Gunneran law that
> matters here.  Per CFJ 1687, to qualify as a partnership under Agoran law
> the devolution of legal obligations must be adjudicable within Agoran law.
> A contract governed by a foreign legal system has no status in Agoran
> law for this purpose.
>
> The question arises of whether Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset is an agreement
> governed by Agoran law, and the answer is an easy no.  Gunneran rule
> 357.2 states that the rules are a binding agreement, but does not state
> by which legal system that agreement is governed.  Neither that rule nor
> any other cites Agoran law as the basis for adjudicating Gunneran rules.
> Nor do the rules cite any other legal system for this purpose.  Looking at
> the circumstances of the formation of Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset, and its
> internal conventions, it is strongly apparent that the Gunneran ruleset is
> intended to be governed only by its own processes, those of Gunneran law.
>
> Thus not only was Gunner Nomic 2.0 not an Agoran partnership at the time
> that CFJ 1696 was called, it *was never a partnership at all*.

I disagree with this interpretation, on the following grounds:

1) At the time of Gunner's purported registration, Rule 1742
   (Agreements) had been amended from "players" to "persons",
   so Gunner was not disqualified by the involvement of persons
   who were not players of Agora.

2) At the time of Gunner's purported registration, Rule 2145
   (Partnerships) had not yet been amended to define a partnership
   as "A binding agreement governed by the rules...", so Gunner
   was not disqualified for being governed by its own rules.

3) The arguments in CFJ 1687 (which also preceded the aforementioned
   amendment of Rule 2145) state that there is no precedent for
   foreign law transmitting obligations to Agoran law, but do not
   state that such transmission is impossible in general.  Instead,
   they state that it is impossible for Colorado law in particular,
   because Colorado law treats contractual obligations (specifically
   whether conflicting obligations are voided) fundamentally differently
   from Agora.  No such argument has been presented for Gunner law.

========================================================================