=============================  Inquiry 818  =============================

    The Rules in general should be interpreted that, if the alleged
    Compact of the Mousetrap Organization exists, it cannot contain the
    Player Swann within its Jurisdiction.

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

Caller:                                 Swann
Barred:                                 Kelly
Barred:                                 elJefe
Barred:                                 Steve

Judge:                                  KoJen
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 818a
Decision:                               SUSTAIN

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

History:

Called by Swann:                        31 Oct 1995 05:34:00 GMT
Assigned to KoJen:                      31 Oct 1995 13:32:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by KoJen:                   02 Nov 1995 21:03:00 GMT
Appealed by Kelly:                      05 Nov 1995 02:08:00 GMT
Appealed by Morendil:                   05 Nov 1995 17:25:00 GMT
Appealed by elJefe:                     06 Nov 1995 14:39:00 GMT
Appeal 818a:                            06 Nov 1995 14:39:00 GMT
SUSTAINED on Appeal:                    10 Nov 1995 18:31:00 GMT

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

Caller's Evidence:

Message #233 (239 is last):
Date: Mon, 30 Oct 95 09:24:57 EST5
>From: kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us (Kelly Martin)
Subject: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: Elections
To: jlc@camex.com
Cc: gardner@aurora.cc.monash.edu.au, gb485@cleveland.freenet.edu


Most Honourable Triumvir elJefe!

In accordance with Rule 1457, I hereby report that I believe that the
Compact of the Mousetrap Organization has been Violated, to wit:

Statute 9 of the Mousetrap Compact states, and I quote:

9.  The Player Swann shall not accept the Office of Notary.  Should
    Swann become Notary by any means, e shall immediately resign that
    Office, naming any one of the Triumvirs as eir Successor, at
    Swann's choice.

Swann, however, has accepted the Office of Notary, in contravention
with this Compact, and further failed to resign the Office immediately
as required by this Statute.  Thus, Swann is in Criminal Violation of
this Statute and thus the Compact generally.

Swann became subject to the Jurisdiction of the Compact of the
Mousetrap on 25 Oct 1995 at 14:52 UTC, upon the adoption of a
Proscription extending the Jurisdiction of the Mousetrap to all
Players, as duly reported to the Acting Notary at that time.

I quote from Swann's message to the Public Forum to illustrate his
abject comtempt for the Statutes:

"Steven" == Steven A Swiniarski <gb485@cleveland.Freenet.Edu> writes:

Steven> I hereby accept the Office &c.

Respectfully submitted this 30th Day of October, Nineteen Hundred and
Ninety-Five,

Kelly Martin
Speaker and Triumvir of Agora Nomic
--
kelly martin                                 <kelly@poverty.bloomington.in.us>

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

Rule 1530/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Compacts: Jurisdiction

      The Jurisdiction of an Organization's Compact is a subset of the
      set of all Players. A Compact has no force to require, or
      oblige, anything of Players who are not within its Jurisdiction.
      (This does not absolve any Players of duties required of them by
      the Rules.)

      Within its Jurisdiction, a Compact's ability to dictate Players'
      activity is limited to the extent permitted by the Rules.

      A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to
      it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization.

      No Compact may have effect prior to its Creation, nor may it
      have effect subsequent to its dissolution.

      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing
      Compacts.

History:
Created by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995
========================================================================
Rule 719/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Joining a Group

      A Player not affiliated with any Group may become a Member of a
      Group at any time after creation of the Group, subject to the
      following restrictions:

        i) Membership procedures in the Ordinances are void if they
           conflict with the Rules.
       ii) No Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir
           sending a request for Membership to the Vizier of that
           Group.
      iii) A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group.

      Other Rules, and the Ordinances, may Provide additional
      Restrictions on Membership.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1760, Oct. 21 1995

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

A Contest's Regulations consist only of Statutes, any one of
      which is referred to as a Regulation. No Player within
      Jurisdiction of a Contest's Regulations is bound by a Regulation
      or combination of Regulations that conflict with the Rules.

      The Regulations can specify the following:

        i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become
           Contestmaster without eir consent.  If left unspecified,
           the Contestmaster cannot change while the Contest exists.
       ii) How the Currencies in the Contest Fund shall be spent.  If
           this is not specified, they may only be spent when the
           Rules require it.
      iii) The amount of the Entry Fee for the Contest, in the form of
           units of any specific Currency.
       iv) Additional restrictions on Players to become Contestants,
           and conditions under which Contestants cease to be
           Contestants.

      A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and
      paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund.  A
      Contestant may quit a Contest at any time by so notifying the
      Contestmaster.  A Contestmaster may resign at any time by
      posting a message to that effect to the Public Forum, at which
      time e ceases to be Contestmaster.

========================================================================
Rule 1455/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Contracts

      Let there be a class of Organization known as a Contract, whose
      Compact can also be referred to as a Contract.

      A Contract consists only of Warranties, which are known as its
      Terms, the Players within its Jurisdiction are known as the
      Parties to the Contract, and the Administrator for all Contracts
      is the Notary.

      Contracts do not possess Treasuries, nor do they possess
      Executors.

      Contracts have the legal force to impose penalties upon Parties
      that do not abide by the Terms of the Contract.  Parties that
      are unwilling or unable to abide by the Terms are said to be in
      Breach of the Contract.

      A Contract may specify the following:

        i) What actions the parties to the contract are required to
           perform, or are prohibited from performing, and under what
           conditions these requirements or prohibitions have force.
       ii) What penalties are imposed upon a party who Breaches the
           Contract.

      The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the
      Contract. In addition to what other Rules require them to
      provide to the Notary, the Foundors must also specify the
      following information:

       i) The identity of each Party to the Contract, each of whom
          must be named in the Terms of the Contract itself.

      Providing a unique Name for the Contract is optional, this takes
      precedence over the general requirements for information
      provided.  If no Name is provided, the Notary must provide a
      unique Name for the Contract and provide this Name to all
      Parties.  Parties can then change the Name as provided for in
      the Contract or in other Rules.

      A Contract is Private, and the Notary shall send a notification
      to all the Parties of a Contract As Soon As Possible after it
      has been legally  entered into.  The Contract shall be in force
      no sooner than the moment of that notification.

      A Contract ceases to have force at the moment it is dissolved in
      accordance with its Terms, or one or more of the Parties of the
      Contract ceases to  be a Player, or the Contract is breached as
      described elsewhere.

      When a Contract is changed (including any change in the Parties) a
      current Party to the Contract must inform the Notary of the
      change as soon as possible after it occurs.  If a Party is being
      added to, or removed from, the Contract, the change only has
      effect if _that_ Party sends the notification.  The Notary shall
      forward this notification of change to all current Parties of
      the Contract As Soon As Possible thereafter.

======================================================================
Rule 1499/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Bearerbonds

      A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules
      for a Contract, except:

        In the statement of the Bearerbond, one or more of the parties
        are identified only by unique abstract Role names (such as
        Bearer, or Party of the First Part and Party of the Second
        Part, or Feduciacrator, Honker, and Trusiast, or whatever),
        rather than being identified as a specific Player.  At all
        times, exactly one Player is associated with each Role; the
        Player associated with a particular Role is known as the
        Rolebearer for that Role in that Bearerbond.

        All the copies of the Bearerbond sent and received during
        the setting up of the Bearerbond shall be accompanied by a
        statement clearly identifying the initial Rolebearer for each
        Role in the Bearerbond.  All these statements must be
        identical.

        To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the
        current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary
        of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which
        Bearerbond is involved (the notary may assign identifying
        names to Bearerbonds, or otherwise impose identification
        mechanisms as e sees fit).  Unless the Bearerbond specifies
        otherwise, the Rolebearer for any Role may be changed in this
        way at any time.  When any Rolebearer in a Bearerbond changes,
        the Notary shall notify all parties to the Bearerbond of the
        fact of the change, the Role involved, and the identity of the
        new Bearer.  The change of Rolebearer takes effect when the
        Notary sends this notification.

        All Rolebearers in a Bearerbond are in all ways parties to the
        Bearerbond.  When the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond
        changes, the previous Rolebearer is no longer a party to the
        Bearerbond, unless e is explicitly named in the Bearerbond
        itself, or is the Rolebearer for some other Role in it.

History:
Created by Proposal 1676, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(1) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995

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

Caller's Arguments:

Player Kelly has alleged that Swann is under the Jurisdiction of a
Compact belonging to an alleged Orginization known as Moustrap.  Kelly
has since sent a message to the Players in this alleged Jurisdiction
alleging that I Violayted said Compact.

Below, as evidence, I present the message I refer to.  It was the first
I had ever heard of "Mousetrap" and it is an obvious attempt to hijack
the Notary's office by including me in the Jurisdiction of a Compact I
have never seen or consented to belong to.

The question is: Is such a thing possible?  Are the rules so constructed
that any arbitrary Organization's Compact can claim Jurisdiction over
any Player w/o that Player's consent or knowledge?  Obviously Kelly and
the other members of the Threat believe this is so and are attempting to
exploit this loophole for their own ends.

So what do the Rules say about the Jurisdiction of Organizations?

>From Rule 1530:

     "A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to
      it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization.
      [...]
      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule governing
      Compacts."

That is fairly clear.  A given Organization can only claim Jurisdiction
over those players the Rules grant the Organization the right to claim
Jurisdiction over.  Specifically the Rles pertaining to the Class of
Organization.

This means that if the Mousetrap Organization belongs an undefined
Class, it can have Jurisdiction over _no_ Players, because there are no Rules
permitting its Class of Organization to have Jurisdiction over _any_
Players.

Unfortunately, Kelly has failed to inform me of what Class of
Organization Mousetrap is, so I must address each possibility in turn.

If Moustrap is of an undefined Class, its Jurisdiction is a set containing
no Players, and therefore cannot contain Swann.

If Mousetrap is a Group, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction
because Swann sent no message to the Vizier of Mousetrap and is also a
member of the Misanthopists' Group.

>From 719:

      "ii) No Player shall become a Member of a Group without eir
           sending a request for Membership to the Vizier of that
           Group.
      iii) A Player may never be a Member of more than one Group."

If Mousetrap is a Contest, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction
because Swan made no application to become a Contestant, paid no entry
fee, and did not consent to be Contestmaster.

>From 1539:

     " i) How a Contestmaster is replaced. No person may become
       Contestmaster without eir consent. [...]
       A Player becomes a Contestant by notifying the Contestmaster and
       paying the prescribed Entry Fee to the Contest Fund."

If Mousetrap is a Contract, Swann cannot come under its Jurisdiction
because Swann was neither a Foundor of Mousetrap, nor did Swann notify
the Notary of any desire to become Party to it.

>From 1455:

     "The Foundors of a Contract must be the set of all Parties to the
      Contract. [...] If a Party is being added to, or removed from, the
      Contract, the change only has effect if _that_ Party sends the
      notification."

The case of Barerbonds is analogous to Contracts.  Swann sent no message
to the Notary requesting to be part of the Jurisdicton of such a Compact:

>From 1499:

     "A Bearerbond is a Nomic Entity which obeys all the rules
      for a Contract. [q.v. avove, Contract Foundors] [...]
      To change the Rolebearer for some Role in a Bearerbond, the
      current Rolebearer and the new Rolebearer notify the Notary
      of the transaction, clearly indicating which Role in which
      Bearerbond is involved [...]"

Since Swann cannot be forced into a Jurisdiction of any existing
Class of Organization, and Organizations without defined Classes have
no Jurisdiction for Swann to be part of, Swann therefore cannot be
part of the Jurisdiction of Organization Mousetrap's Compact, as Kelly
claims in eir message.

This is TRUE regardless of the existence of Mousetrap itself, which is a
separate legal question for a future CFJ.

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

Judge KoJen's Arguments:

My decision on CFJ 818 is TRUE.

I.e., that the Compact of the Mousetrap Organization, if it exists, cannot
contain Swann within its Jurisdiction.

Let us assume, for the purposes of this CFJ, that the Mousetrap Organization
does indeed exist, and that its Contract reads as it has been published in the
Public Forum by members of the Triumvirate. (Actually, one or both of the
above
are almost certainly false for other reasons, but this will be ignored for the
purpose of this CFJ. See the Appendix for a demonstration of why other types
of
Organizations besides Groups, Contests, and Contracts do not exist.)

The question becomes, can Statute 9 (assuming that it exists) compel Swann to
fall under its jurisdiction?

We know that Mousetrap, if it exists, is not a Group, not a Contest, and not a
Contract. So, what kind of Organization is it? None of the above. (Remember,
we're suspending for the moment the impossibility of having other types of
Organizations.)

R1530 sez:

>      A Compact can only have Jurisdiction over Players permitted to
>      it by the Rules governing its Class of Organization.

What are the Rules governing the non-Group, non-Contract, non-Compact Class of
Organization?

None. There are no Rules which force Swann to be under this Jurisdiction.

It has been claimed by some that R116 is the Rule which governs this Class.
However, this is a gross stretch of the term "to Govern". Merely stating that
"the unprohibited is permitted" is not a phrase which I can accept as
"governing a Class of Organization".

Especially because we have examples of Rules which *do* explicitely govern a
class of Organization. Namely, R766 governs the class known as Group. Rule
1446
govers the Contest. R1455 governs the Contract. Each of these very
specifically
and unambiguously defines which Players are under the jurisdiction of an
Organization of that class.

In other words, Rules 1446, 1455, and 766 serve as examples for what is meant
for a Rule to "governs a Class of Organization". Had there been *no* such
Rule,
then we could pehaps take some license and look harder for rules which *might*
be interpreted as such. However, since there are such Rules, and they are
unambiguous, it is quite apparent that R116 should not be interpreted as such.


Apppendix: Why the Above Reasoning is Somewhat Irrelevant, Because the
Mousetrap Never Existed in the First Place.

R1528 sez:

>       Let there be a set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations.

Cannot the "set of Nomic Entities known as Organizations" (call it S) be
itself
a Nomic Entity? Of course it can. R1011 sez:

>       Any Entity which is created by the Nomic Rules, and which exists
>       only within the context of Agora Nomic (such as Points, Votes,
>       Currencies and any Official Records) may *not* be changed by any
>       action other than those specified by the Rules.

Is S created by Nomic Rules? Yes. R1528 effectively creates it by the phrase
"Let there be...".

Does S exist only within the context of Agora Nomic? Yes. How could a set of
Nomic Entities exist in any contect other than Nomic?

Therefore, the set of Organizations is a Nomic Entity.

To add to this set (by adding another class of Organization) would be to
arbitrarily change a Nomic Entity, prohibited by R116.

We must also remember, in divining the meaning of R116, that R116 merely
"permits" the unprohibited. It does not make "possible" the unprohibited. This
has been discussed before, and I thought was generally accepted. Even if it
were "permitted" to add to the set, it would still be "impossible", because
there are no provisions for doing so.


-- KoJen

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