==============================  CFJ 1879  ==============================

    Canada is a nomic.


Caller:                                 pikhq

Judge:                                  Taral
Judgement:                              FALSE

Appeal:                                 1879a
Decision:                               REMAND

Judge:                                  Taral

Judge:                                  woggle

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by pikhq:                        19 Jan 2008 22:43:29 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      19 Jan 2008 22:50:24 GMT
Judged FALSE by Taral:                  29 Jan 2008 03:48:10 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        29 Jan 2008 04:36:12 GMT
Appealed by Iammars:                    29 Jan 2008 04:49:20 GMT
Appealed by Pavitra:                    29 Jan 2008 04:57:33 GMT
Appealed by BobTHJ:                     29 Jan 2008 08:56:45 GMT
Appeal 1879a:                           05 Feb 2008 23:05:28 GMT
REMANDED on Appeal:                     07 Feb 2008 23:03:15 GMT
Assigned to Taral:                      07 Feb 2008 23:03:15 GMT
Taral recused:                          19 Feb 2008 00:36:07 GMT
Assigned to woggle:                     19 Feb 2008 00:41:06 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     01 Mar 2008 19:05:42 GMT
woggle recused:                         01 Mar 2008 19:05:42 GMT
Judged FALSE by Wooble:                 05 Mar 2008 13:56:46 GMT


Judge Taral's Arguments:

I judge CFJ 1879 FALSE. This has been endlessly debated, but in the
end it is a matter of definitions. I believe that nomics are first and
foremost *games*, intended for the purpose of enjoyment. Canada does
not satisfy this, and thus is not a nomic.


Appellant omd's Arguments:

Judgement is not sufficiently verbose and does not appeal
to sufficiently esoteric sources for its logic.


Appellant Iammars's Arguments:

I SUPPORT, also on the basis that the phrase "purpose of enjoyment" is
ambiguous as to whether is modifies nomic or games. If it modifies games,
then I cite the definition in CFJ 1860 as to refute this.


Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I considered applying the definition adopted as part of Rule 2200 in
crafting my judgement, since I believe the intent of adopting this
rule was to provide a descriptive, not normative, definition of
nomicness, thus making it irrelevant that it was adopted after this
CFJ was called.

However, I found that I disagree with the definition in Rule 2200, and
it seems to me that it doesn't successfully capture the essence of
what it is to be a nomic, but rather how the players who voted to
adopt it would like to define a nomic.

A nomic is, the current definition under the rule notwithstanding,
essentially a modifiable set of rules agreed to by all participants
for whatever purposes those participants have for joining the game,
whether that purpose is simply amusement, a deep consideration of the
philosophical implications of self-amending systems, social
interaction with other players, or any other purpose.  However, a
near-universal aspect of such rulesets, embodied in Agora's Rule 101
and an Immutable Rule of Suber's initial ruleset, and in most other
nomic rulesets of which I am aware, is the provision that Players of a
nomic are only bound by the rules as long as they choose to be, and
that players can, in general, cease to be bound by the ruleset at any
time rather than accept a penalty under the rules that they deem to be
unfair.  Neither the laws of Canada nor the laws of any other nation
of which I'm aware contain such a provision; a person assigned an
unjust (in their own view) penalty under criminal law cannot, in
general, accept a self-imposed exile and cease the be bound by the
laws of Canada.  The laws get their authority not merely by the
explicit consent of all those subject to them, but through the threat
of force should they be broken.  Additionally, the laws impose
themselves upon entities incapable of explicitly consenting to
anything (newborn children), those who don't explicitly consent to the
laws but may be said to implicitly consent to them by remaining on
Canadian soil when they have the means to move elsewhere, and those
who most certainly don't consent (such as foreign nationals on foreign
soil controlled by the Canadian military).