==============================  CFJ 2585  ==============================

    It is ILLEGAL for me to vote for Quazie in the ongoing Janitor
    election.

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

Caller:                                 allispaul

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by allispaul:                    16 Jun 2009 07:23:46 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     17 Jun 2009 08:06:52 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 17 Jun 2009 13:29:53 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

By R1586, the entities referred to here are the same as
those referred to in R2029, which commands "ye Marvy" to "always Dance
a Powerful Dance."  These terms are not defined in the rules, so R754
is not violated.  Thus, voting non-PRESENT would be a breach of R2029
(and I am not protected by, for example, 101(v) or some similar
defense because 2029 takes precedence over every rule with which it
conflicts).

Also, I have not yet voted in the Janitor election.

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

Caller's Evidence:

I agree to the following:
{
This is a Public Legalistic contract and a pledge, called Three Coins.
Parties to Three Coins are called Marvy.  For the purposes of Three
Coins, to Dance means to cast exactly one valid vote on an Agoran
decision, and a Powerful Dance is a vote of PRESENT.  Any party to
this contract may leave it by announcement.
}

Rule 1586/6 (Power=2)
Definition and Continuity of Entities

      If multiple rules or contracts (hereafter documents) attempt to
      define an entity with the same name, then they refer to the same
      entity.  A document-defined entity's name CANNOT be changed to
      be the same as another document-defined entity's name.

      A document referring to an entity by name refers to the entity
      that had that name when the document first came to include that
      reference, even if the entity's name has since changed.

      If the documents defining an entity are repealed or amended such
      that they no longer define that entity, then that entity and its
      properties cease to exist.

      If the documents defining an entity are amended such that they
      still define that entity but with different properties, then
      that entity and its properties continue to exist to whatever
      extent is possible under the new definitions.

Rule 2029/0 (Power=4)
Town Fountain

                      /\   /\
                      / \ / \
                         T
                        his
                      Power-4
               Rule (the first ever)
                was placed to honor
           The Agoran  Spirit Of The Game
           by Goethe, Steve, Murphy, root
           and OscarMeyr, Scamsters. Look
           on our works, ye Marvy, but do
      always Dance a Powerful Dance.  Hail Eris!

Also see CFJ 1881, which ruled that R2029 imposes no obligations
because "Marvies" were at the time undefined.  (I have interpreted
"Marvy" as the plural form because the rule seems to be addressing a
group of people.  I hope this has no bearing on the case.)

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

Judge ais523's Arguments:

The caller emself quotes rule 1586 in eir evidence, and I think that
this is one of the relevant rules here; rules 1586 and 754 together
imply that, unless overridden by a rule of power at least 4, or by a
rule that takes precedence over 754 and contradicts it, "Marvy" in the
Town Fountain has the meaning it had when the Fountain was created.

Although "marvy" is currently an undefined term, it has not always been
that way. In June 2002, when the Town Fountain was created, a player was
marvy iff they were in the Outer Cabinet, i.e. an Oligarch and neither
the Speaker nor an officer.
The precedent of CFJ 1881 states "Marvies are no longer defined in
Agora, nor does the previous definition carry over well to the current
ruleset."; as there were no Oligarchs at the time of CFJ 1881, nor
anything even resembling them in the ruleset, then this precedent indeed
made sense at the time. However, by the implicit mention in CFJ 1881,
and the explicit precedent of CFJ 1534 (that in a rule of historical
significance such as 104 or 2029, terms used in the rule have the
meaning they had when the rule was created), not to mention rule 1586, I
can only conclude that "marvy" in rule 2029 has the meaning it did when
the Fountain was created.

So how well does marviness translate into the current ruleset? Officers
and the Speaker still exist, and have rule 1586 continuity of the
concepts. The Oligarchy doesn't, but the concept of Caste (importantly,
introduced since the precedent of CFJ 1881; this is a relevant
difference that means that the old precedent doesn't apply here) was
deliberately designed to reflect the old Oligarchy system, although with
several differences.

The old Oligarchy rules had requirements to be an Oligarch (active, no
more than two Blots, not the Speaker, not the Speaker-Elect, not the
GWotO); even if someone met the requirements, they still did not
automatically become an Oligarch; instead, open positions were filled by
auction. Although any player who met the requirements could bid, players
who weren't Politicians had to pay a surcharge, and extra upkeep for
staying in the Oligarchy (although all Oligarchs had to pay some
upkeep). The number of Oligarchs was equal to quorum on an ordinary
proposal, which was 3. The main defining feature of being an Oligarch
was that they got 1 vote on Ordinary proposals (other players got 0); on
Democratic proposals, voting power dependended on Voting Entitlements
and on Blots (with 5 Blots reducing voting power by 1), but with
Oligarchs capped at 2 and non-Oligarchs capped at 5. There were also
Sane proposals, where all players had 1 vote (although interestingly,
this was affected by Blots the same way as on a democratic proposal).

Although most of you probably know the current Caste rules already, I'll
summarise them for the record. There are democratic proposals where all
first-class players have one vote (and other players have 0),
corresponding to the old Sane proposals, and ordinary proposals where
votes are determined by Caste. Players can spend assets in order to
change their own caste, or that of other players; every month, the Grand
Poobah increases the caste of four players (one to each possible caste),
then reduces the caste of others in order to maintain a maximum number
of players in each caste; the Speaker can choose a set of players that
the Grand Poobah has to try to increase.

So the question here is, does the current concept of Caste fit
sufficiently with the old concept of the Oligarchy that it allows us to
define "Oligarch" sufficiently well to define "marvy"? Instead of having
one distinction (oligarch vs. non-oligarch), we now have 5 (alpha, beta,
gamma, delta, savage). So where could we draw the dividing line?

There are three possible correspondences: "a voting power greater than
the default" (i.e. epsilon+ partnerships, delta+ first class players),
"a positive voting power" (i.e. epsilon+), or "a voting power
sufficiently high that it needs asset expenditure to maintain it" (i.e.
delta+). The third correspondence here seems like the most plausible
one; the exclusivity of Oligarchy was one of the more important points
about it, and the concept of a high voting power that one needs to pay
to maintain seems to me to really be the essence behind the Oligarchy.
The current rules effectively require players to increase a voting power
above Epsilon once every month, in order to not drop down to Epsilon by
default (unless the Grand Poobah or Speaker decides to show mercy on
them); and you need assets (or Speaker/Poobah favour) paid by you or by
someone else to become Delta or higher in the first place. Also, it
seems reasonable to exclude inactive players from this; they couldn't
legally be Oligarchs under the old rules (well, not if anyone noticed;
it was pragmatised), and they don't have an above-normal voting limit
under the current rules. Therefore, I conclude that the most sensible
definition of "marvy", under the current ruleset, is that a player is
marvy if eir Caste is at least Delta, e is active, e is not the Speaker,
and e is not an officer.

By this definition, I make the current list of those who are marvy:
{C-walker, Pavitra, Taral, ehird}. Note that allispaul is not on this
list. Therefore, FALSE.

A more direct argument for FALSE, is that by the same reasoning, "Dance"
and "Powerful Dance" in rule 2029 don't have the same meaning in
allispaul's contract either, so R2029 has no bearing over whether
allispaul can vote for Quazie or not.

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

Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:

The link is probably even stronger than noted.

>From approx. March 2000 to October 2001, Oligarchs were divided into
High, Middle, and Low, with periodic forced promotions (Low to Middle,
Middle to High) and demotions (High to non); Caste was deliberately
designed to reflect this version.

>From approx. October 2001 to July 2004, Oligarchs were flat; this is
the version that H. Judge ais523 has described.

>From approx. July 2004 to December 2006, Oligarchs were replaced by
holders of Share Cards, again introducing multiple levels as well as
ongoing maintenance costs (the more Share Cards you had, the less
other Cards you could have, due to maximum Hand Size).

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