From nomic-business-owner@teleport.com  Wed Nov 22 04:58:26 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA24948 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 04:58:24 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id CAA02348 for nomic-business-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 02:51:03 -0800
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id CAA02335 for <nomic-business@teleport.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 02:50:59 -0800
Message-Id: <199511221050.CAA02335@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA13358; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 11:50:05 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: BUS: Re: OFF: CFJ 833 Judgement: FALSE
To: nomic-business@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 11:50:05 MET
In-Reply-To: <199511220945.BAA24674@desiree.teleport.com>; from "Andre Engels" at Nov 22, 95 10:44 am
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-business@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

> 
> ======================================================================
> 			ASSIGNMENT CFJ 833
> Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that 
> Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity.
> ======================================================================
> Judge:		Andre
> Judgement:	
> 
> Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, 
> 		Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram
> 
> Not Eligible:	
> Caller:		Morendil
> Barred:		
> On Hold:	
> 1005:		
> 
> Effects:	Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement
> 
> ======================================================================
> 
> History:
> Called by Morendil, timestamp lost
> Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET
> Judged FALSE by nadre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET
> 
> ======================================================================
> 

With so many errors I will do this upper part again:



======================================================================
			JUDGEMENT CFJ 833
Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that 
Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity.
======================================================================
Judge:		Andre
Judgement:	FALSE

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, 
		Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Morendil
Barred:		
On Hold:	
1005:		

Effects:	Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement

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

History:
Called by Morendil, timestamp lost
Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET
Judged FALSE by Andre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET

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

Andre

From nomic-official-owner@teleport.com  Wed Nov 22 03:52:42 1995
Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA24725 for <blahedo@quincy.edu>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 03:52:38 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA24712 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:45:20 -0800
Received: from wing3.wing.rug.nl (wing3.wing.rug.nl [129.125.21.3]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA24674 for <nomic-official@teleport.com>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:45:13 -0800
Message-Id: <199511220945.BAA24674@desiree.teleport.com>
Received: by wing3.wing.rug.nl
	(1.37.109.8/16.2) id AA16804; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:44:18 +0100
From: Andre Engels <csg419@wing.rug.nl>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 833 Judgement: FALSE
To: nomic-official@teleport.com
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:44:17 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com
Status: RO

======================================================================
			ASSIGNMENT CFJ 833
Rule 1011 should be interpreted so that if a Player deregisters, that 
Player continues to exist as a Nomic Entity.
======================================================================
Judge:		Andre
Judgement:	

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Coco, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, KoJen, 
		Michael, Oerjan, Saltwater, Steve, Vanyel, Wes, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Morendil
Barred:		
On Hold:	
1005:		

Effects:	Andre gains 3 Points for timely Judgement

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

History:
Called by Morendil, timestamp lost
Assigned to Andre, 15 November 1995, 15:37 MET
Judged FALSE by nadre, 22 November 1995, 10:18 MET

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

I cite Rules 1011, 869, 1043, 1432 and 676 as evidence.

My reasoning goes :

Rule 676 requires the Registrar to keep track of Players who have 
'Left the Game'. If we assume that 'Leaving the Game' is equivalent 
to deregistering, this Rule has the consequence put forth in the 
above Statement.

Even if 'Leaving the Game' does not equate to deregistering, Rule 
1011 prohibits a Player (which 1011 itself defines as a Nomic Entity) 
from being 'arbitrarily modified'. Destruction of a deregistered 
Players would fall under that Rule, since no other Rule requires a 
Player to be destroyed when no longer associated with a person.

In addition, Rule 1432 requires a Player to be 'kept around' when the 
person associated with it has deregistered it (or emself, I don't 
know which is more appropriate). Otherwise, there would be no way to 
associate 'the same Player' with a person reregistering.

There are two minor points to mention. The first is that Rule 869 works 
only if we assume that Players are 'automagically' created when a 
person registers. This shouldn't be a problem, though, since nothing 
prohibits Entities from being abitrarily created.

The second is Rule 1043, which states that a Voter 'ceases to be a 
Player' upon deregistering. If a Voter is the same as a Player, we 
must read that Rule as 'a Player ceases to be a Player', i.e. is 
destroyed. However, the equation of Voter and Player does not 
necessarily hold, and in any case Rule 676 has priority over Rule 
1043.

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

Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Judgement: FALSE

Trying to judge makes one wish the term 'Game Entity' would have been defined

My first problem was: Are Players Game Entities? The answer to this is 'yes',
not only because of 1011, but also because Rule 206, which says: "Players and 
Groups are Voting Entities." (Rule 206 itself implies that a Voting Entity
is indeed an Entity).

But now take a good look at Rule 1011:

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

Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2)
Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed

      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.

      No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same
      name or nickname.
      (*Was: 450*)

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

In my opinion Rule 1011 does not apply, for three reasons:

 1. If there is a change it would be specified by the Rules.
 2. Even though Players are, as shown, Game Entities, a Player is not
    an "Entity (...) which exists only within the context of Agora Nomic".
 3. Not destroying the Entity would change it anyway, so even if Rule 1011
    would disallow it, it would only make Rule 1011 in conflict with itself

To make these points more clear:
 1. Rule 1043 states that the Voter (which equates to the Player, Rule 103)
    ceases to be a Player, which acts as a specification.
    Furthermore, as Chuck has argued in CFJ 816 a specification as wanted
    by Rule 1011 may be implicit. The first Paragraph of Rule 1011 will NEVER
    stop any Rule (except 106) from having any effect it would have without
    its existence. If a Rule cannot take effect without destructing a Game
    Entity it (implicitly) specifies the destruction of that Entity.
 2. Rule 869 says: "A Player is any person who is registered as a Player."
    This implies that the Player is the same Entity as the person. And the
    person clearly has existence outside of Agora Nomic. At least, I have...
 3. This same line of Rule 869 implies that deregistration stops the Player
    from being a Player. Which clearly is a change - the Entity changes its
    Category...

So, what is going on? First let's look at the Caller's arguments:

1. Rule 676

Even though the Caller calls 676 as an important part of eir evidence, it does
not apply here. It only says the Registrar must list of each Player whether
e has left the game. It might still be that there cannot be any Players who
have left the game. This just implied that the category of Players who get
(L) is always empty.

This is indeed the case. Look at Rule 1016: "An Active Player is a Player who
is not On Hold." Said Rule 676 says that any Player is exactly one of the
three: active, on hold or left the game. But all Players not On Hold are
Active, so none has left the Game.

2. Rule 1011

As said, Rule 1011 does not apply

3. Rule 1432

This argument is more to the Point. It is clear that the Player is (still) in
existence when a person reregisters. However Rule 1432 is also satisfied if
the Player is 're-created', as long as it is the same Player that is recreated.

Now we get to eir minor Points, which will be my major Points:

1. A Player is not 'automagically' created when a person registers. What
   happens, as Rule 869 shows, is that the person (an existing entity, although
   perhaps not an Entity yet) becomes a Player, i.e. is placed in a certain
   Category of Entities. This can be compared with the way Groups became
   Organizations under the Group/Contest/Contract Consolidation: There were no
   new Organizations formed to correspond to the old Groups, but the old
   Groups were placed in the Category of Game Entities which are
   'Organizations', and thus became Organizations. Likewise when someone
   registers, no new Player is formed, or even filled, but the person is
   placed in the Category Players. All this is implied by Rule 869, which
   equates the person to the Player, not just makes them correspond to one
   another.
2. Rule 1043 DOES clearly show what happens: The person, which entered the
   Category 'Players' upon deregistering, now leaves that Category.


All in all, it is starting to get clear what happens when a Player deregisters:
The Player is indeed not destroyed, which would be a bit harsh, as the person
and the Player are the same, it (or, better, e) simply ceases to be a Player.

So, now let's get back to the Statement itself. We have already proven the
Player does not cease to exist, it just ceases to be a Player. Does it stay
a Nomic Entity. I.e. can a person, who is not a Player, be a Nomic Entity?
The Rules are silent on this matter, they only define what IS a Nomic Entity,
not what is NOT. Rule 217 says that now I must consider Game Custom, the
Spirit of the Game and past Judgements. I think that I come close to Game
Custom by saying that, unless the Rules specify or imply otherwise, those
and only those things are Game Entities, which (quote Rule 1011) "exist[...]
only within the context of Agora Nomic(...)". So someone who has deregistered
is NOT a Nomic Entity.

Conclusion:
I judge this CFJ FALSE, on the ground that, even though the Player continues
to exist, it is not as a Nomic Entity. Furthermore, even if e did continue
to exist as a Nomic Entity, I would still judge FALSE, as such a continued
existence would not be caused by Rule 1011, but by other Rules, or perhaps
even Game Custom.


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

Evidence (included by reference with CFJ, complete text added by Judge):

Rules 676, 869, 1011, 1043, 1432

Evidence (added by Judge):

Rule 206
Judgement CFJ 816 (excerpt)

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

Rule 676/3 (Mutable, MI=1)
The Nomic Phone Books

      The Registrar is responsible for maintaining the following
      information:

      Nomic White Pages: List of all Players; their Nomic nickname,
      preferred email address, and (only if desired by the Player)
      their real name.  Each entry is annotated with one of these
      codes that indicate the current status of the Player:
         (A) - active player;
         (H) - on hold;
         (L) - left the Game;
      as well as the date the last change in status occurred.


      Nomic Blue Pages: "Government Listing". List of each Officer and
      other official Nomic positions (like Speaker), and the Nomic
      nickname and email address of the Player in that position. May
      also include other special official information like the address
      of the Nomic listserver, etc.

      The Registrar shall publish the Blue Pages in the Registrar's
      Report.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1315, Nov. 12 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1681, Aug. 22 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1739, Oct. 15 1995

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

Rule 869/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Registered Players

      A Player is any person who is registered as a Player.
      Registration occurs when a person who is not a Player sends a
      message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered. No
      person may be registered as a Player more than once
      concurrently.

      If a Player has to be identified for whatever purpose, then the
      use of that Player's Agora nickname is preferred, but not
      obligatory: *any* unambiguous way of identification is allowed.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1313, Nov. 12 1994
Amended(2) by Proposal 1437, Feb. 21 1995

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

Rule 1011/0 (Semimutable, MI=2)
Game Entities May Not Be Arbitrarily Changed

      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.

      No two Nomic Entities (including Players) shall have the same
      name or nickname.
      (*Was: 450*)

History:
Created by Proposal 450, Sep. 10 1993
Amended by Proposal 1011, Sep. 5 1994
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=2 by Proposal 1593, Jun. 2 1995

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

Rule 1043/1 (Mutable, MI=1)
Deregistration

      A Voter may deregister from Agora by sending a message to the
      Public Forum announcing eir deregistration. A Voter who
      deregisters in this fashion ceases to be a Player effective at
      the time date-stamped on that message, and e may not reregister
      as a Player until a new Game has begun.

      Other Rules may define other conditions under which Voters may
      be deregistered.

History:
...
Amended(1) by Proposal 1305, Nov. 4 1994

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

Rule 1432/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Player Uniqueness

      If a Person becomes a Player, then ceases to be a Player, then
      becomes a Player once again, the Person becomes the same Player
      as e was previously.

History:
Created by Proposal 1438, Feb. 21 1995

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

Rule 206/6 (Mutable, MI=1)
Voting Entities and Votes

      A Voting Entity is an Entity which is generally authorized by
      the Rules to cast a vote or votes on a Proposal, although other
      Rules may withdraw this authorization from a Voting Entity in
      specific circumstances without that Entity thereby ceasing to
      be a Voting Entity. No Entity is permitted to vote on a
      Proposal unless it is a Voting Entity, and only those Entities
      designated by the Rules to be Voting Entities are Voting
      Entities. Players and Groups are Voting Entities.
      
      Each Voting Entity has two votes on a Proposal, unless another
      Rule says otherwise. However, no such Entity shall have more
      than five votes on any Proposal, regardless of what any other
      Rule may say to the contrary. The casting of any votes in
      addition to an Entity's first vote may only be achieved by the
      casting of Extra Votes, if that is permitted, as specified in
      other Rules.

      This Rule defers to all other Rules which do not contain this
      sentence.

History:
Initial Mutable Rule 206, Jun. 30 1993
Amended(1) by Proposal 1479, Mar. 15 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1553, Apr. 14 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1565, Apr. 28 1995
Amended(4) by Proposal 1641, Aug. 1 1995
Amended(5) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995
Infected and Amended(6) by Rule 1454, Nov. 14 1995

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

Judgement CFJ 816:

[On Rule 1011]

It has been suggested that the word "specified" necessarily means
"explicitly specified."  This argument is absurd; it can just
as well mean "implicitly specified."  There are numerous changes
which occur every day which are not explicitly specified; and
thus there is a strong Game Custom that 1011 does not mean
that changes must be *eplicitly* specified.  I will give just
one example: let's look at Rule 790, specifying the method of
filling vacant Offices:

Rule 790/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
Filling Vacant Offices

      If, for any reason, an Office is vacant, that fact shall be
      announced by the Electioneer.  The Electioneer shall be the
      Registrar; or in eir absence, the Speaker.  All Players willing
      to hold the Office shall notify the Electioneer of that fact
      within three days of eir announcement of the vacancy.  At the
      end of the three day period, the Electioneer shall randomly
      choose one player from those who indicated a willingness to hold
      the Office, and that Player shall become that Officer.  This
                      ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
      rule applies to Offices in general, and thus defers to Rules for
      specific Offices.
      (*Was: 689*)


Note it says, "that Player shall become that Officer."  It does
not explicitly say the Office is filled.  Naturally, it does *imply*
the Office is filled--and very clearly so--but it does not state
so explicitly.  Here is an example of an implicit change--the
change in the Office from a vacant state to a filled state--but
no one would suggest that the change does not take place because
it is not explicitly stated, even given Rule 1011.  Innumerable
implicit changes take place like this every day.  They
are usually so obviously *implicit* in the Rules that we do
not even consider to question them.  To interpret 1011 in the
manner suggested by some would be absurd, chaotic, and most
importantly, against Game Custom.