==============================  CFJ 1860  ==============================

    It is a violation of rule 2159 to falsely claim that something is a
    protective decree to Steve Wallace (the biological person, not
    necessarily the player).

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

Caller:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  BobTHJ
Judgement:                              IRRELEVANT

Appeal:                                 1860a
Decision:                               REASSIGN


Judge:                                  Iammars
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by pikhq:                        08 Jan 2008 00:29:45 GMT
Assigned to BobTHJ:                     10 Jan 2008 11:17:43 GMT
Judged IRRELEVANT by BobTHJ:            10 Jan 2008 22:44:47 GMT
Appealed by Taral:                      11 Jan 2008 00:38:19 GMT
Appealed by woggle:                     11 Jan 2008 00:44:01 GMT
Appealed by root:                       11 Jan 2008 00:57:37 GMT
Appeal 1860a:                           11 Jan 2008 01:05:02 GMT
REASSIGNED on Appeal:                   14 Jan 2008 22:17:25 GMT
Assigned to Iammars:                    14 Jan 2008 23:05:26 GMT
Judged FALSE by Iammars:                21 Jan 2008 20:10:15 GMT

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

Judge BobTHJ's Arguments:

The relevant portion of R2159 is as follows:
{
All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
      that a document is a protective decree.
}

The answer to this consultation thus is based upon the possibility for
a person to be a nomic. Peter Suber's original definition of a Nomic
is:
{
Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect
it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic
is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing
them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot
be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of
course, can be changed.
}

Since Mr. Suber's definition was written games under the name of
"Nomic" have taken on many forms. However, there is a common element
among Nomic-like games: Most (if not all) of the rules are subject to
change. This does not, however, mean that all games with changeable
rules are Nomic.

A person's DNA, the blueprints or "rules" that govern that person, are
subject to change (random mutation). However, while mutation of a
cell's DNA might change that cell's mytosial (is that a word?)
offspring, it does not in change the DNA composition of any of the
other cells in the body.
A person's ethos is certainly subject to change. Experience over time
causes a change in beliefs. However, a person can not be simply
defined by DNA composition or ethos. These systems, while major
contributions to a being, do not constitute the whole of that being.

Also, merely being subject to change is not equivalent to being a
nomic. The second law of thermodynamics would suggest that everything
is subject to change, yet it would be foolish to consider every tiny
pebble to be a nomic.

In the end however, despite whatever reasoning there may be for or
against the nomichood of persons, Steve Wallace is not a protectorate.
Protectorate decrees by definition only apply to Protectorates of
Agora. Therefore I judge this CFJ to be IRRELEVANT.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

There is a specific and direct precedent defending BobTHJ in CFJ 1804.  A
judgement should be considered appropriate unless appealed and overturned.
I submit this as a gratuitous argument, as a judge should not be compelled
by the threat of criminal action. -Goethe

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

Gratuitous Evidence by pikhq:

Insofar as I'm aware, Steve Wallace is not the contact point for any nomic,
except perhaps himself (as this case will estabilish).

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

Judge Iammars's Arguments:

Portion of Rule 2159/1 (Power=2)
Protective Decrees

      All players are prohibited from falsely claiming, to any nomic,
      that a document is a protective decree.

Peter Suber's Definition of a Nomic

Nomic is a game in which changing the rules is a move. In that respect
it differs from almost every other game. The primary activity of Nomic
is proposing changes in the rules, debating the wisdom of changing
them in that way, voting on the changes, deciding what can and cannot
be done afterwards, and doing it. Even this core of the game, of
course, can be changed.

dictionary.com 's Relevant Definitions of a Game

3. a competitive activity involving skill, chance, or endurance on the part of
two or more persons who play according to a set of rules, usually for their
own amusement or for that of spectators.
4. a single occasion of such an activity, or a definite portion of one: the
final game of the season; a rubber of three games at bridge.

Statement from pihkq:
Insofar as I'm aware, Steve Wallace is not the contact point for any nomic,
except perhaps himself (as this case will estabilish).

-----

The statement here boils down to "Is Steve Wallace a Nomic?" since if Steve
Wallace is a Nomic, the statement is true, where as if Steve Wallace isn't a
Nomic, the answer is false.

H. BobTHJ used Peter Suber's Definition of a Nomic to try to determine whether
or not Steve Wallace was a Nomic by attempting to determine whether or not
Steve Wallace had rules which could be changed. This is nice, but not the
right way. The Peter Suber's Definition of a Nomic not only mentions that
changing the rules is a move, but also that it is a game. This is the way in
which the definition needs to be attacked.

Looking at dictionary.com's definition of a game, we see that Steve Wallace
fits into neither of the two definitions. The first definition would imply
that Steve Wallace is a competitive activity. I don't know about most people,
but I don't make "Steve Wallacing" one of my normal activities, nor do I
compete in "Steve Wallacing." A person can participate in an activity, create
an activity, run an acivity, promote an activity, be a prize for the activity,
or any number of verbs ther, but a person cannot be an activity, nor a
singular occasion of such an activity.

Since Steve Wallace is not a game, he cannot be a nomic either.

One other thing that needs to be considered is whether or not Steve Wallace is
the contact point for a nomic. According to pihkq, our Steve Wallace contact,
Steve Wallace isn't a contact point, we can dismiss this possibility.

Since he is not a nomic, proclaiming falsely that something is a protective
decree to him is not a violation of Rule 2159, therefore I judge FALSE.

Also, as a note, whether or not the claimed protective decree in question is a
document, as the rule clearly says that only documents count for this rule.
However, trying to submit a nondocument as a protective decree is impractical,
as any nomic to which someone claims to submit a protective decree will
research Agora and find that protective decrees are only documents, so it
won't work.

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