>From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Wed Aug 16 03:51:35 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.11]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA06375 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 03:51:26 -0500
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) id BAA29546 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 01:49:53 -0700
Received: from wing2.wing.rug.nl (wing2.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.2]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.10/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA29524 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 01:49:34 -0700
>From: csg419@wing.rug.nl
Message-Id: <199508160849.BAA29524@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing2.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA14086; Wed, 16 Aug 1995 10:49:34 +0200
Subject: OFF: CFJ 795: Final Judgement (finally)
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 16 Aug 95 10:49:34 METDST
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

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

CFJ 795

Caller: favor

Statement: The dissolution of the Reform Group violated the Rules of
  Agora Nomic.

Barred: TAL, Steve, elJefe
Requested Injunction: none

Judge: SugarWater
  Judgement: TRUE
  Injunctions: As per Rule 665/0, I issue the following injunction:

      The Move to dissolve Reform Group is retracted.  Reform 
    Group still exists.  The Game State will be adjusted appropriately.

     The Ninny in this situation is the Vizier of Reform Group, as e 
    executed the illegal dissolution.  Under the authority of Rule 908/3, i
    prescribe the following words to be used in the Formal Apology:

    Philharmonic   boustrophedonic   supersonic   gin  tonic  chronic

pro-Speaker: Swann
  Judgement: TRUE
pro-COTC: Dave B
  Judgement: FALSE
pro-Justiciar: Zefram
  Judgement: FALSE

Final Judgement: FALSE

Effects reported by COTC (*: new to this report)
  SugarWater receives 3 points for Judgement
  Swann receives 5 points for speedy Judgement
  Dave B receives 3 points for Judgement
  KoJen looses 10 points for defaulting on Appeal
 *Zefram receives 5 points for speedy Judgement
    (strange, in fact... Speedy Judgement, while the Judgement was 3 full
     weeks after the call... Although real-life judges would find that very
     speedy, of course).
 *SugarWater loses 3 points for being overturned
 *The Injunctions are NOT effective

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

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

History:
  Called by favor Wed, 26 Jul 95 09:31:05 EDT
  Assigned to SugarWater Wed, 26 Jul 95 22:57:16 CDT
  Judged TRUE by SugarWater Mon, 31 Jul 1995 00:38:18 -0700 (PDT)
  Judgement published Mon, 31 Jul 95 11:25:15 CDT
  Appealed by KoJen Mon, 31 Jul 95 12:42:15 -0400
  Appealed by elJefe Mon, 31 Jul 1995 14:05:13 -0400
  Appealed by TAL Mon, 31 Jul 95 19:35:07 SET
  Appealed by Steve Tue, 1 Aug 1995 10:33:01 +1000 (EST)
  Assigned to Kelly as Speaker, Chuck as COTC, and Steve as
    Justiciar Tue, 1 Aug 95 02:35:35 CDT
  Assigned to Swann as pro-Speaker Tue, 1 Aug 95 03:01:13 EST5
  Assigned to KoJen as pro-Justiciar Wed, 2 Aug 1995 00:08:51 +1000 (EST)
  Judged TRUE by Swann Wed, 2 Aug 1995 14:54:50 -0500
  Assigned to Dave B as pro-COTC Thu, 3 Aug 95 10:53:07 CDT
  Judged FALSE by Dave B Wed, 9 Aug 1995 21:05:47 CDT
  Defaulted by KoJen Wed, 9 Aug 1995 00:08:51 +1000 (EST)
  Assigned to Zefram as pro-Justiciar Tue, 15 Aug 1995 13:05:38 METDST
  Judged FALSE by Zefram Wed, 16 Aug 1995 00:25 +0100 (BST)

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

Arguments of Caller (favor):

Rule 721 states that all Members of a Group must obey the
Ordinances of that Group, so long as the Ordinances do not
conflict with the Rules.  Therefore if an action by any
Members of a Group does not obey the Ordinances (modulo
conflicts with the Rules), that action violates the Rules.

At the time the Reform Group was dissolved (or, for any
Platonists listening, when dissolution-looking messages
were posted to the Public Forum), Ordinance 0 of the
Reform Group Ordinances stated that the Purpose of the
Group was to foster progressive change and dynamic
growth within the Game of Agora Nomic.  While such an
abstract statement of principle cannot be held to
govern every small particular action of the Members
of the Group, the fact that the statement is included
in the Ordinances, in the lowest-numbered spot, traditionally
reserved for the highest-precedence and most-encompassing
item, implies that it must have *some* impact on the
Members of the Group, and must constrain at least *some*
of their potential activities.  There must, that is, be
*some* action on the part of Members that would count
as not obeying that Ordinance.

The dissolution (or attempted dissolution) of the Group,
coming as it did almost immediately after a change to the
Ordinances which provided for the Group Treasury to be
divided among the members upon the dissolution of the
Group, constituted a breach of trust with those non-Member
Players who had invested in Reform Group coins.  More
generally, it seriously eroded the confidence of the
Agora public in Group currencies, to the point that
the elimination of such currencies has been suggested.
And even more broadly, it cast a pall on general mechanisms
of trust within Agora Nomic.  None of these effects can
possibly be interpreted as fostering progressive change
and dynamic growth within the Game; in fact, it is obvious
that they have entirely the opposite effect, chilling
any mechanisms of progress and growth that require trust,
whether trust in Group currencies or in any other
cooperative effort of Players.

If any action could count as not obeying Ordinance 0 of
the Reform Group Ordinances, this action must be deemed
to so count as well.  Therefore this action does not
obey that Ordinance, and therefore it violates the Rules
of Agora Nomic.  Naughty, naughty!

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

Arguments of Judge (SugarWater):

 Allow me to begin with some clarifications.  There is reason to
assume that there will be those who doubt the validity or legal force of
Ordinance 0, appealing to its obvious subjectivity and lack of
specificity.  However, the Rules make it clear that any group Ordinance,
regardless of content, has legal force (under the Jurisdiction of the
Rules).  The establishment of subjective Ordinances only serves to place
more power in the hands of those who interpret them (the Judicial system). 
If, in the opinion of this judge (and opinion it would be), the members of
Reform Group had not "fostered progressive change and dynamic growth",
Ordinance 0 would have been violated.  I, therefore, encourage all
Ordinance writers to carefully evaluate their Ordinances in light of this
fact.
 Now, to the Judgement.  . .
 Ordinance 0 outlines the "purpose of this Group".  Purpose is 
defined as (according to Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary, 1993) 
"something set up as an object or end to be attained".  Therefore, the 
goals within this rule are "to be attained".  This does not require that
each action be in line with this goal, but that, in the end, the goal be 
met.  I interpret this to mean that the Group may not be dissolved until 
this goal is met. 

 Ordinance 0 contains four requirements.  I will address them
individually.

 1) The facilitation of Progressive Change within the Game

  This does not require progressive change.  Merely the 
facilitation of it.  Whether something is "progressive" is not is a
matter of opinion, but the members of Reform Group have provided a forum 
(at least for themselves) to aid their attempts to modify the game.  Many 
of those modifications could be termed "progressive".  This requirement 
is met.


 2) [The facilitation of] dynamic growth within the Game

  Again, there must exist facilitation of,  Not necessarily
realization of, dynamic growth.  It is clear that the existence of the 
Group and its Ordinances allowed for dynamic growth.  They dynamic growth 
of its point stock is only one example.  This requirement is met.

 3) Striving to insure continuity
  To insure is to make certain.  This requires that the
Group (and its members) attempted to make certain the continuation of the
Game.  Rule 1433/1 clearly states "A Game ends when a Win occurs".  As 
long as this Rule remains, continuity cannot be insured.  Because Reform 
Group made no efforts to remove this clause, i cannot believe that they 
have striven to insure continuity.  In fact, the recent point hoarding
(presumably in an attempt to win) suggests that the members of Reform 
Group encourage the end of the Game.  This requirement has not been met.

 4) Striving to insure playability.

 While a state of playability currently exists, no mechanisms 
exist to "insure" this state.  I do not have access to individual Reform 
Group efforts or proposals, so I cannot determine whether an attempt to 
create such was made.  This requirement is questionable.


 It is clear that at least requirement 3, and perhaps requirement 
4, of Ordinance 0 of the Reform Group Ordinances have not been met.  
Therefore, by its own language, the purpose has not been met.  And,
therefore, it is illegal for Reform Group to dissolve by the method it
has chosen to do so.  Ordinance 19 (the mechanism for dissolution) does
not claim precedence, and is therefore governed by an unwritten "unless 
otherwise prohibited".  It has been proven that Ordinance 0 prohibits 
dissolution by any means which do not have precedence over it.

 Though my reasoning differs from that of the caller, our 
conclusion is the same.  The dissolution of Reform Group is illegal 
according to the current Rule State.

 Dissolution will be illegal until Ordinance 0 is removed or 
modified, Ordinance 19 claims precedence, or another method is chosen to 
dissolve.

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

Arguments of pro-Speaker (Swann):

Injunctions: I uphold the Judge's injunctions insofar as they are in
             accord with the Rules.

Arguments:

The question to be settled here is the legality of Reform's dissolution.
The appealed Judgement was TRUE, that the dissolution of the Reform
Group did, in fact, violate the Rules of Agora Nomic.

Reform tried to dissolve on the basis of the following Ordinance:

"19.
       At any time, any Member may Propose dissolution of the Group.
       The Group shall be dissolved when such a proposal receives the
       consent of the members.  In this case each member of the Group
       receives an equal share of the Treasury upon ceasing to be a
       Member of the dissolving Group.

       A member who leaves the Group for any other reason shall not
       receive any share of the Points or Currencies in the Group's
       Treasury."

This obviously illustrates condition (c) of Rule 1397:

     "A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following
      conditions become true:

        (a) The Group has no members;
        (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the
            Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or
        (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its
            Ordinances."

However, (c) references the Ordinances as a whole, not any specific
Ordinance.  From this it's fairly clear that if Reform's Ordinances
conflict with the act of dissolution in whole, or in part, then the
condition (c) of 1397 cannot be met, and the Group cannot dissolve.
This is, in fact, because of the lack of a precedence relationship
defined within the Ordinances, making any conflict within the Ordinances
irreducible.  If a conflict exists, as alleged, then an action cannot be
taken in "accordance with the Ordinances," because the lack of a
conflict-mediation mechanism makes it impossible to define such an
action.  (Because of the language of 1397, I don't believe in this case
a paradox is engendered.  If the act cannot be defined, it cannot be
"in accord with the Ordinances" as defined by (c).)

Ords. 15 through 18 bear on the Vizier's duties, and manipulation of the
Group treasury.  These don't conflict with 19.

Ordinance 14 is an interesting one, I'll get back to it.

Ords. 9 through 13 are more definitional rules defining the Vizier's
duties.

Ords. 5 through 8 define the characteristics of the membership.

Ordinance 4 is another interesting one, which I'll get back to.

Ordinance 3 is essentially useless, since it refers to a situation
that no longer exists (The Speaker distributing Proposals.)

Ords. 1 and 2 deal with internal and external votes.

Ordinance 0, of course, it the basis for the original CFJ.
To wit:

"0.
       The Purpose of this Group is to facilitate progressive change
       and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also
       striving to insure the continuity and playability of the same."

To which I'll now add the two other Ordinances which I believe
indispensable for this Judgement.

"4.
      The Vizier may expend Points or Currencies held in the Group's
      Treasury for any purpose, but only as specified in the
      Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership."

and:

"14.
       These Ordinances may be changed only with the consent of the
       Membership.  No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive
       effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of
       the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the
       Rules."

Ord 4 is important because of the transfers the dissolution caused, Ord
14 is important because it defines the only precedence taken in the
Ordinances.

First, Ordinance 0--

I agree with favor's argument that an abstract statement of principle,
enshrined within the Reform Ordinances, has some effect on the Group's
activity.  I disagree that it's position forces precedence over the
remainder of the Ordinances.  I believe that, except in the case of 14,
there's no precedence defined within the Ordinances.  (Though, as I
argued earlier, any conflict voids the dissolution-- 19 would have to
explicitly take precedence over the remaining Ordinances to remove any
conflict.)

Did dissolution violate this principle?  I think that it is evident that
the destruction of Reform (or any Group) along with the Coins of that
Group (especially Reform Coins in this Context) violated the principles
of "growth" and "continuity" in that the end of Reform caused a
shrinkage in the economy and the number of Game Entities, and caused a
discontinuity in the Agoran Economy (i.e., a massive shift of resources).

However, it can be argued that the principles of "progressive change"
and "playability" were fostered by this attack on point stagnation and
the introduction of a major crisis-- crisis management being one of the
major facets of playing this game called Agora :)

In fact, it can be argued-- and has been-- that this crisis is quite in
line with the spirit of Reform Ordinance 0.  And, because it is an
abstract principle expressed in Ord 0, the spirit of the Ordinance
should carry at least as much weight as its letter.  I think there is
not enough evidence to rule that Reform violated Ord 0 in dissolving.

But, this does not completely answer the question raised in the
statement.  Was the dissolution in accord with the Ordinances as a
whole?

Now we descend from lofty statements of principle to the muck-ridden and ugly
mechanics of our legal system-- the Reform Ordinances in particular.

First, the one precedence clause in the Ordinances, 14.  It voids any change
in
the Ordinances that would cause an action already performed by a member to be
in conflict with the Ordinances or the Rules.

The abolishment of the Ordinances, when the group dissolved, is such a
change.  The Group cannot dissolve, if such dissolution would make a
members prior act illegal...

There's interesting wording here, which I'll repeat: "No change in the
Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action already
performed by a member of the Group to become void or illegal under the
Ordinances or the Rules."  Because of the two clauses, this obviously
refers to two separate conditions.  The first is obvious, and we'll
ignore it.  The second is more problematical.  Because of the separation
the clauses, the second half is presumably not referring to retroactive
effects, which are already forbidden.  It could be interpreted to mean
a continuing ban on ever rendering actions permitted and required by the
members impermissible or unrequired, which is an impractical
interpretation freezing the Reform more or less at the state that it was
when this Ordinance was adopted.  The only interpretation left is one
that forbids changes from "illegalizing" actions that are occurring
contemporaneously with the Ordinance change (either some continuing
state or effect, or actions occurring at the same time as the Ordinance
change.)

This last interpretation is logical, makes sense, and has a great bearing on
the dissolution of Reform.  There are a number of things that occur at the
same
time as a Group's dissolution-- the primary one being
the transfer of Currencies (of much is being made.)

The transfer of Currencies is the sole responsibility of the Vizier in this
case, because of Ordinance 4.  This Ordinance goes beyond the Rules
making the Vizier Executor, because it restricts the Vizier to only make
transfers, "as specified in the Ordinances or with the Consent of the
Membership."

The act of dissolution is in accord with Ordinance 19, and also with the
Consent of the Membership (who voted for dissolution.)

*BUT*

The dissolution of the group "illegalizes" the Vizier's duties.

Simply stated, the act of dissolution crates the paradoxical situation
where the Vizier is attempting to transfer points "as specified in the
Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership" as part of the greater
act that dissolves the Ordinances, the Membership, eir duties as Vizier,
the Treasury, and the Group.

This is in violation of my interpretation of the final clause in
Ordinance 14.  To restate this interpretation to illustrate the conflict
in this specific case:  Ordinance 14 forbids any Ordinance Change which
also causes actions that would be rendered illegal or against the
Ordinances when the Ordinance Change takes effect.

This, if it occurred in the Agora Ruleset might be UNDECIDABLE because of
the paradoxical question of the state of Ordinance 14 if it is part of
the Ordinance Change in question.  However, because of the Ordinance's
subordinate relationship to the Rules, an UNDECIDABLE ruling isn't
merited.

Quite simply stated, if the Ordinances either forbid the Group to
dissolve, or creates an internal paradox when a Group tries to dissolve,
(The situation I face here) then the Group cannot dissolve "in accordance
with its Ordinances" as stated in 1397./0.

Therefore, I must uphold the prior Judgement of TRUE, but for different
reasons.

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

Argument of the pro-COTC (Dave B):

   The issues involved in this case are complex.  Rule 1397/0 requires
that the voluntary dissolution of a Group must be in accordance with its
Ordinances.  However, the Ordinances of the Reform Group seem to be in conflict
and neither the Rules, nor the Ordinances, specify how such conflicts
should be resolved.  Ordinance 19 appears to grant the Group the power
to dissolve, but it fails to claim precedence over the other Ordinances.
So any such dissolution that conflicts with other Group Ordinances would
not be in accordance with the Ordinances.  The Caller argued, and the
judge agreed, that Ordinance 0 provides such a conflict.  But Ordinance 0
does not require that all actions of the Group must be in accordance with
its purpose.  Nor does it require that the Group may not dissolve before
the purpose of the Group is achieved.  It seems reasonable to this Justice
that dissolving the Group to further the purpose would be quite possible,
even if that dissolution would only advance the purpose, not attain it.
Thus I find that Ordinance 0 lacks the authority to override Ordinance 19.
It is a guideline, not a mandate, and as such is not binding on every
individual Group action.  While I wish that I could decide otherwise, since
I believe that this action of the Reform Group will have a grave impact
on Agora, I must find that the action is in accordance with the Ordinances
and the Rules.

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

Argument of pro-Justiciar (Zefram):

It appears that the major points of this case are the following:

(a) Did the decision of the Reform group to dissolve violate its
    principles as defined by Ordinance 0?

(b) If so, does Ordinance 0 take precedence over Ordinance 19 and
prevent the dissolution?

(c) Does the dissolution of the Reform group violate its Ordinance 14?

The original Judge of this CFJ decided that (a) and (b) are true,
yielding a Judgment of TRUE.  The pro-Speaker decided that (a) is
false, but (c) is true, also yielding a TRUE Judgment.  The pro-CotC
decided that (a) is true, but that the nature of Ordinance 0 (being a
guideline rather than a specific prescriptive rule) is such that it is
subordinate to the other Ordinances, making (b) and thus eir Judgment
FALSE.  (E did not address the issue of Ordinance 14.)

I shall examine these issues in turn.

(a) Ordinance 0 defines "the Purpose of this Group".  Note that it does
    not define "the purpose of this Group".  It is well-established in
    Agora that capitalisation of a noun where it would not normally be
    capitalised implies that the word refers to a game Entity, often
    having little to do with the normal English meaning of the word.
    It is conceivable that Ordinance 0 is not even a guideline, but
    that it defines some abstract Entity, called "the Purpose of Reform
    Group".  Rule 754/0 might be taken to cover issues of
    capitalisation in some cases, but I doubt it.

    Ignoring the previous paragraph for a minute, Ordinance 0 states
    that the Purpose/purpose of Reform is "to facilitate progressive
    change and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while
    also striving to insure the continuity and playbility of the
    same".  It has been argued that dissolution of Reform does indeed
    do these things for Agora, and I agree.  However, the Judge pointed
    out that it does not "insure the continuity of [the Game]", because
    it makes a Win happen sooner than it otherwise would, and the Game
    ends when a Win happens.  Once again, capitalisation is highly
    significant: "the game" would refer to Agora, but "the Game" refers
    to the *current* Game within Agora.  In this respect, dissolution
    clearly violated Ordinance 0.

    In conclusion on this point, I must say that I am rather undecided
    as to whether or not the dissolution violated Ordinance 0 or not.
    That decision hinges on how the capitalisation of "Purpose" is
    interpreted.  Fortunately, I do not have to decide this...

(b) Does Ordinance 0 have the power to prevent the dissolution?  I
    think not.  Ordinance 0 sets out the principles of the Group, if
    anything.  It provides a definition.  It is not prescriptive in any
    way.  It makes no requirement that the Group meet, or attempt to
    meet, these goals.  Therefore Ordinance 0 alone has no power to
    require any particular behaviour of the Group or its Members.

(c) The pro-Speaker argued that Ordinance 14 should be interpreted such
    that it prevents any change to the Ordinances making any action
    currently being performed by any Member illegal.  That is not what
    the Ordinance says -- it clearly states "no change in the
    Ordinances can have a retroactive effect, nor cause any action
    already performed by a member of the Group to become void or
    illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules."  I interpret this as
    preventing retroactive effects, with the second clause being
    totally redundant.  Redundant clauses are not illegal.

    It would be possible to rationally interpret "become void or
    illegal under the Ordinances or the Rules" to mean "become void or
    illegal, under the new, changed Ordinances or the current Rules".
    This interpretation would mean that changes to the Ordinances could
    not illegalise any action that had ever been performed by a
    Member.  This would be a weird, but legal, Ordinance.  But I think
    the implied meaning of "Ordinances or the Rules", in this clause
    which applies to actions *already performed*, must be "Ordinances
    or the Rules *as they were at the time*".  This is a much more
    normal interpretation.

    There is also the question of whether dissolving the Group
    constitutes a "change in the Ordinances".  The pro-Speaker argued
    that dissolving the group abolishes the Ordinances, hence changing
    them.  I disagree.  I believe that the Ordinances are unchanged by
    dissolution of the Group, and are merely without effect from that
    point on.  Hence, Ordinance 14 has no bearing on the legality of
    the dissolution.

I therefore conclude that neither Ordinance 0 nor Ordinance 14
prevented the dissolution of Reform Group.  Reform Group did dissolve,
in accordance with Rule 1397/0 and its own Ordinance 19.


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

Evidence provided by Caller (favor):

  I. Rule 721/0
 II. Posting of revised Ordinances of the Reform Group
III. Public Forum messages from the Reform Vizier
 IV. Discussion messages on loss of public trust

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rule 721/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Ordinances, and Defaults

      All Members of a Group must obey the Ordinances of that Group at
      all times, so long as the Ordinances do not conflict with the
      Rules.

      The Ordinances of a Group may specify:

      1.   how the Ordinances of that Group may be changed, or that
      they may not be changed.  If the Ordinances do not so specify,
      then the Ordinances shall be changed only upon unanimous
      agreement of all Members of that Group.

      2.  the Vizier of the Group, so long as the Vizier is a Member
      of that Group.  If the Ordinances of a Group do not so specify,
      the Vizier shall be the Player whose Application for that Group
      was received first by the Registrar, if e is still a Member of
      that Group.

      3.  the Ordinancekeepor of the Group, so long as the
      Ordinancekeepor is a Member of that Group.  If the Ordinances do
      not so specify, then the Vizier of that Group shall also be its
      Ordinancekeepor.

      4.  How the Points or Currencies in the Group's Treasury shall
      be spent, so long as it does not conflict with the Rules.  A
      Group may spend Points or Currencies in the same manner as a
      Player.  When Points or Currencies are to be spent from the
      Group's Treasury, the Vizier of that Group shall inform the
      Scorekeepor or Recordkeepor for the Currency, as is appropriate.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 24 Jul 95 20:40:50 EDT
>From: jlc@triple-i.com (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9507250040.AA29024@Camex.COM>
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Subject: BUS: Revised Ordinances of Reform Group
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

All players please note:

I, elJefe, Vizier of the Reform Group, certify that the Ordinances of
the Reform Group have been changed, in accordance with the Ordinances.
The Ordinances now read:

Reform Group Ordinances

0.
      The Purpose of this Group is to facilitate progressive change
      and dynamic growth within the Game of Agora Nomic, while also
      striving to insure the continuity and playability of the same.

1.
      In all matters which require the Consent of the Membership, the
      Vizier shall announce the Matter in the Group's Public Forum,
      and all Members shall indicate their opinion to the Vizier as
      soon as reasonably possible.  Consent of the Membership is
      defined as at least two-thirds of the Active Members in favor
      of the matter at hand.  The matter shall not be resolved until
      either seven days have passed from the Vizier's announcement,
      or matters are such that no possible response from those Active
      Members who have not yet responded could result in a change in
      the consensus opinion. However, if, after seven days, less than
      two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all, the
      consensus shall be that the Membership is silently opposed.

2.
      The Ordinances shall have the power to bind the Active Members
      of the Group to cast their individual Votes on Proposals in a
      manner determined by the Ordinances.  In the event that the
      Ordinances do bind the Membership to Vote upon a Proposal in a
      specified way, no Member may cast a Vote on that Proposal which
      is not in concord with this binding; however, a Member may
      always choose to not Vote upon a given Proposal.

3.
      On each Proposal distributed by the Speaker, the Vizier shall
      seek to determine the consensus opinion of the Group of how the
      Membership of the Group shall vote.  Each Member may express
      exactly one of the options specified below, or may indicate that
      e has no opinion; if any of these options is favored by at least
      two-thirds of those Members expressing an opinion, the
      Membership shall be bound by the terms of that option, provided
      that at least two-thirds of the Membership has responded at all
      prior to the end of the Voting Period for that Proposal.  If no
      consensus of opinion is reached by the time that 24 hours remain
      of the Voting Period of a Proposal, then the Membership shall be
      free to Vote as they are individually inclined on that Proposal.

      The options are:
      * to vote FOR the Proposal;
      * to Vote AGAINST the Proposal;
      * to ABSTAIN on the Proposal;
      * to allow the Members to vote however they please on that
        Proposal (UNBOUND);
      * to direct the Vizier to solicit bids from the Electorate at
        large for the privilege of designating the manner in which the
        Group Members shall be bound to Vote (SOLD).

      When the consensus opinion of the Group on a specific Proposal
      is to offer the Group's Votes up for sale, the Vizier shall post
      an announcement to all Active Players advising them that the
      Membership of the Group offers its votes on that Proposal to the
      Player who bids the largest number of the Coin of the Group for
      that privilege. Members of the Reform Group may not enter bids
      in the sale of the Group's votes, nor may any Player who has
      been a Member of the Reform Group during the 10 days previous to
      the time the auction is announced.

      Bids shall be in the form of transfers of a positive number of
      Reform Group Coins to the Reform Group Treasury. A Player makes
      a bid by sending a message to the Vizier of the Group indicating
      which Proposal e is bidding on, how much e is bidding, and the
      manner in which e wishes to direct the Group to vote if eir bid
      is successful. At any time, a Player's bid on a particular
      Proposal for which the Group's votes are up for sale shall be
      the total number of Coins which that Player has transferred to
      the Reform Group Treasury in bids on that Proposal.

      The Vizier shall accept bids until 72 hours prior to the end of
      the Voting Period on the Proposal.  The Vizier shall then notify
      the highest bidder, if there is one, that e has won the auction.
      All unsuccessful bids are then returned to their respective
      bidders.

      If there is a successful bid, then the Membership of the Group
      shall be bound to vote as the successful bidder has indicated.
      Otherwise the Membership shall be free to vote as they please.

      One half of the Coins transferred in a successful bid, rounded
      up, shall be distributed as evenly as possible among the active
      members of the Group; the remainder, along with any fraction
      unable to be evenly distributed, shall be destroyed.

4.
      The Vizier may expend Points or Currencies held in the Group's
      Treasury for any purpose, but only as specified in the
      Ordinances or with the Consent of the Membership.

5.
      New Members may be admitted to the Group with the consent of the
      Membership.  The Name of a New Member shall be added to the
      bottom of the List of Members.

6.
      An existing Member may be expelled from the Group with the
      consent of the Membership.  For the purpose of determining the
      Consent of the Membership in a matter of expulsion, the Member
      being considered for expulsion shall have no voice.

7.
      Whenever a Member leaves the Group for any reason, eir name
      shall be removed from the List of Members.

8.
      A Member may, at any time, request that eir name be moved to the
      bottom of the List of Members.

9.
      The Vizier may, at any time, nominate another Member as eir
      nominated successor, who shall become Vizier in the event of a
      vacancy, and may retract any such nomination at any time.  All
      such nominations and retractions shall be made to the Group's
      Public Forum.

10.
      The Vizier may resign as Vizier at any time, with or without
      leaving the Group.  Should the Vizier resign without nominating
      a successor, e shall be expelled from the Group.

11.
      In the event that the Group might otherwise have no Vizier, the
      Vizier's nominated successor shall become Vizier.  If there is
      no nominated successor, or the nominated successor is
      ineligible, the first Member on the List of Members shall become
      Vizier.  If there is no such Member, the Group shall be
      dissolved.

12.
      The Vizier shall, in addition to eir other duties, maintain a
      record of the nominated successors to all Group Offices, and
      maintain the List of Members in the order required by these
      Ordinances, and make this information available to any Member
      upon request.

13.
      The Vizier shall, at all times, be the Ordinancekeepor.

14.
      These Ordinances may be changed only with the consent of the
      Membership.  No change in the Ordinances can have a retroactive
      effect, nor cause any action already performed by a member of
      the Group to become void or illegal under the Ordinances or the
      Rules.

15.
      The Vizier may create or destroy Coins of the Group at any time
      for any purpose, but only as specified in the Ordinances or with
      the Consent of the Membership.

16.
      The Vizier shall permit Players to purchase Coins of the Group
      from the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of
      Exchange.  If a Service Fee applies to the transaction, the
      number of Coins received shall be reduced by the amount of the
      Service Fee.

      A Player who wishes to purchase Coins may do so by transferring
      a sufficient number of Points to the Group Treasury.  When the
      Scorekeepor has confirmed the Point Transfer, the Vizier shall
      transfer the appropriate number of Coins to that Player,
      creating Coins if necessary.

      The current Service Fee is equal to 5% of the transaction, not
      to be less than 1 Coin, or to exceed 50 Coins.  This fee does
      not apply to members of the Reform Group.

17.
      The Vizier shall permit Players to sell Coins of the Group back
      to the Group, in exchange for Points at the current Rate of
      Exchange.  A Player who wishes to sell Coins back to the Group
      may do so by transferring the Coins e wishes to sell to the
      Group Treasury.  The Vizier shall then transfer the appropriate
      number of Points from the Group Treasury to that Player.  The
      transferred Coins shall then be destroyed.

18.
      The Rate of Exchange for Coins of the Group shall be the ratio
      between the number of Coins of the Group in existence (less
      those held in the Group's Treasury) and the number of Points
      held in the Group's Treasury.  This ratio determines the number
      of Coins received in exchange for one Point, or the number of
      Coins needed to receive one Point.

19.
      At any time, any Member may Propose dissolution of the Group.
      The Group shall be dissolved when such a proposal receives the
      consent of the members.  In this case each member of the Group
      receives an equal share of the Treasury upon ceasing to be a
      Member of the dissolving Group.

      A member who leaves the Group for any other reason shall not
      receive any share of the Points or Currencies in the Group's
      Treasury.

Regards,
- elJefe, Reform Group Vizier

******************************************************************
  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <jlc@triple-i.com>
  Information International
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 09:26:12 -0400
>From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9507251326.AA00379@zeus.Camex.COM>
To: gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au, jlc@triple-i.com, kunne@crnvma.cern.ch
Subject: BUS: Result: Proposal to dissolve
Cc: nomic-business@teleport.com
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

Two-thirds of the members having responded in the affirmative,
and no there being no possible response from other members which
could change the outcome, I declare that the Group is dissolved.

- elJefe, Reform Group Vizier

******************************************************************
  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <jlc@triple-i.com>
  Information International
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 10:00:50 -0400
>From: jlc@camex.Camex.COM (Jeff Caruso)
Message-Id: <9507251400.AA00734@zeus.Camex.COM>
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Subject: BUS: Dissolution of Reform Group
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

I, elJefe, Vizier of the Reform Group, certify the following.

Registrar, please note:

  In accordance with its Ordinances, the Reform Group has elected
  to dissolve, and is dissolved under authority of Rule 1397.

Registrar, please note:

  TAL, Steve and elJefe cease to be members of the Reform Group,
  simultaneous with its dissolution.

Scorekeepor, please note:

  Under authority of Rule 762, each of TAL, Steve, and elJefe
  (the players ceasing to be members of the Reform Group)
  receives 1/3 of the contents of the Reform Group Treasury.
  In particular:

    TAL receives    958.0 points,
    Steve receives  958.0 points,
    elJefe receives 958.0 points.

  This is in excess of the 90% limit in Rule 1476, but that rule
  conflicts with Rule 762, which claims precedence over all
  other rules which determine which transfers are legal.

Regards,
- elJefe, Vizier of dissolving Reform Group

******************************************************************
  Dr. Jeffrey L. Caruso <jlc@triple-i.com>
  Information International
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jul 1995 20:41:37 -0400
>From: gb485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu (Steven A Swiniarski)
To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Subject: Re: BUS: Dissolution of Reform Group
Sender: owner-nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com

Reply to message from c647100@showme.missouri.edu of Tue, 25 Jul
>
>On Wed, 26 Jul 1995, Charles E. Carroll wrote:
>
>> >I would like to heartily laugh at anyone who thinks that any
>> >non-Ruleset-sanctioned currency (such as RG Coins) can *possibly* work
>> >right.
>>
>> Uh-huh.  And why wouldn't something like Reform work with an Ordinance
>> like: "Any Ordinance Changes must be published in the Public Forum,
>> and do not take effect earlier than one week after such publication?"
>>
>> Chuck
>>
>This also begs the question of whether any Ruleset-sanctioned
>currency can work right. The Rules are hardly less fluid
>than ordinances. Look at Marks (or Walruses, or Bunnies....)
>
>Vlad
>
>

This I think misses the point on two counts-- first off, a large part of any
currency, virtual or otherwise, comes as much from faith as it does from any
intrinsic value.  The fact that Reform did what it did has probably permanently
damaged the faith any Player's going to have in any group-based currency.
That faith is so important to the value of any currency there's been at least
one knee-jerk response to eliminate Group currencies altogether.  That, I
think, is a stupid response-- but it shows how devaluing this one act was,
depite the fact that it changed the rules not a whit.

The second point-- and this is why the maliase hasn't, and probably won't
spread to the ruleset at large-- is the fact that a large number of Players
lost a lot in this wiothout being consulted, informed, or having any sort of
vote on the matter.  Whatever happens with the Ruleset of Agora, it probably
wont, initially, happen behind everyone's back.

Swann

--
Steven Swiniarski  (aka S Andrew Swann)
gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu
Whenever you have an efficient government you have a dictatorship.
                                        --Harry S Truman
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

Evidence provided by pro-Speaker (Swann):

Rule 1397/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Dissolution of Groups

      A Group shall cease to exist when any of the following
      conditions become true:

        (a) The Group has no members;
        (b) The continued existence of the Group would result in the
            Office of Vizier of that Group being vacant; or
        (c) The Group elects to dissolve in accordance with its
            Ordinances.

      Upon the dissolution of a Group, all remaining Members of the
      Group simultaneously cease to be Members of that Group.  Next,
      any Points remaining in the Group's Treasury are destroyed, and
      any Currencies remaining in the Group's Treasury are transferred
      to the issuing Entity for that Currency (the Bank for Marks, the
      issuing Group for Coins).  Finally, all Coins issued by the
      dissolving Group are destroyed.

      In the case of a Group which elects to dissolve, the Vizier of
      the dissolving Group shall notify the Registrar of the Group's
      dissolution.  in all other cases, the Registrar shall be
      responsible to detect and report the Group's dissolution.

History:
Created by Proposal 1397, Jan. 29 1995

----------------------------------------

Rule 1478/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Executors

      The Rules may, for any given non-Player Nomic Entity, specify a
      Player, or the means to designate a Player, who shall act as the
      Executor of that Entity.  The Executor of a non-Player Nomic
      Entity shall have the legal authority to act on behalf of that
      Entity, as if e were that Entity.  The Rules may also specify
      constraints on how the Executor of an Entity may act.

      If a non-Player Nomic Entity has no Executor, it may not act
      except as specifically required of it by the Rules.

      The Executor of a Group is that Group's Vizier.

      For the sake of completeness, a Player is eir own Executor.

History:
Created by Proposal 1601, Jun. 19 1995

----------------------------------------

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

End of CFJ 795

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