From  Wed Nov 22 03:32:45 1995
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id DAA24643 for <>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 03:32:42 -0600
Received: (from daemon@localhost) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) id BAA21966 for nomic-official-outgoing; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:25:22 -0800
Received: from ( []) by (8.6.12/8.6.9) with SMTP id BAA21949 for <>; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 01:25:17 -0800
Message-Id: <>
Received: by
	( id AA07782; Wed, 22 Nov 1995 10:24:18 +0100
From: Andre Engels <>
Subject: OFF: CFJ 837 Judgement: TRUE
Date: Wed, 22 Nov 95 10:24:18 MET
Mailer: Elm [revision: 70.85]
Precedence: bulk
Status: RO


	"Rule 101 should be interpreted to prevent any other Rule 
	 from having coercive force on a person who is not a Player."


Judge:		Vlad

Eligible:	Andre, Chuck, Dave Bowen, elJefe, favor, Kelly, 
		KoJen, Michael, Morendil, Oerjan, Pascal, Saltwater, 
		Steve, Vanyel, Vlad, Wes, Zefram

Not Eligible:	
Caller:		Swann
On Hold:	
1005:		Coco

Effects:	Vlad gains 5 Points for Speedy Judgement


  Called by Swann, 18 November 1995, 23:40 -0500
  Assigned to Vlad, 21 November 1995, 12:00 MET
  Judged TRUE by Vlad, 21 November 1995, 22:09 -0600 CST

Requested Injunction (not granted):

Rule 101 shall be annotated with the above statement.





Relevant Rules:

Rule 101, Rule 116



[Caller's Note: In all the following arguments I ignore the issue of 
enforceability.  I shall only deal with the power the Ruleset claims for 
itself, not its Real World ability to compel action.]

My purpose here is twofold, to demonstrate that Rule 101 is not 
redundant and that it has a continuing fundamental effect on the Game 
which would be "damaged" if the Rule is Repealed.

As a preface, I wish to address Rule 116 for a moment because it has a 
direct impact on how we interpret Rules in general, and has a
fundamental impact on the interpretation I am presenting here:

>From Rule 116:

     "Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated [...]"

Excluding the more restrictive category of Rule changes, we are left 
with the concept that the Rules are only empowered to compel action when 
they explicitly claim such compulsion.  Thus, explicit constructions of 
the sort, "X must Y," can only be relevant in the cases of "X" and "Y."  
Such a construction _only_ compels "X," not "U," "V," or "W."  And the 
construction _only_ compels the act "Y," not "Z."

Most important to my following interpretation, the presence of such a 
construction in a high-precedence Rule, especially a Rule dealing with 
first principles, has the following ramification: A construction of the
form "X must Y," is _also_ saying "not-X need not Y."  Or, stated 
another way, in a Ruleset where 116 exists, any statement "X must Y" is 
also an implicit statement of the scope of coercive force permitted by
the statement.  116 says, in effect, "X must Y" cannot bind any "not-X"
to abide by the statement.

Having addressed this item of general interpretation, I will now address
the specific instance of the interpretation of Rule 101.

My thesis is somewhat in opposition to the ongoing debate about 101's 
Redundancy.  So far all arguments have taken the tack that 101 is a 
prescriptive Rule, one that tells the Players what to do.  This, I 
think, is due to a somewhat misleading title, "Obey the Rules."
But let us look at the Rule in toto:

     "All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect,
      in the form in which they are then in effect.  The Rules in the
      Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game.
      The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and
      201-219 (Mutable)."

As a prescriptive Rule, this does indeed seem redundant, insofar that 
"obeying the Rules" is part of the consensus reality that allows the 
"game" to be played in the first place.  Without such a consensus 
reality, the Game would not exist, and Rule 101 could not save it.

However, Suber gave us a warning, and placed this Rule in the position 
of ultimate primacy.  Why?

I suggest a paradigm shift is in order.  Ignoring the title, let us look 
at this Rule, which takes precedence over all others, with fresh eyes.  
I suggest a deeper examination reveals 101's true nature as a 
definitional Rule.  Rule 101 is the keystone that defines the length and 
breadth of Nomic.  Consider all its facets.  It defines the Initial Set 
its bootstrapping function.  It defines when the Initial Set takes 
effect a provision that, given 101's precedence, would prevent even a 
game rife with retroactive effects from having any effects prior to the
first game.

Most importantly, it defines the set of persons who must abide by the 
Rules.  This is the key function of 101 in Agora today, so key that it 
is nearly subliminal.  Rule 101 says "All Players" must abide by the 
Rules, this, by precedence, omission, and by the presence of 116,
explicitly delimits the jurisdiction the Ruleset claims for itself.

Consider the following (ill worded) Rule:

Rule 6666 (Mutable MI=1)
Gimme all your Money

Everyone in the Game shall transfer one Mark to Swann every Nomic Week.

In Agora, with 101, the interpretation of this rule-- its scope, shall 
we say-- is delimited.  We know who is in the game, and who is not.  
However, without 101, a rule such as this-- one that requires action of 
a person-- has a scope that widens with no set limit.  The phrase 
"Everyone in the Game" has no delimiters.  Now, as a practical matter, 
someone may decide that "in the Game" can only refer to "Players."  So
let us consider the Rule without that qualifying phrase.

Rule 6666 (Mutable MI=1)
Gimme all your Money

Everyone shall transfer one Mark to Swann every Nomic Week.

Who is "everyone?"  It must be everyone with the ability to be compelled 
by the Ruleset.  These are vastly differing groups with 101 and without 
101.  This example's language is unlikely to appear in Agora, the word 
"Players" being an adequate synonym for "everyone."  However, it is 
conceivable that a complex Rule or set of Rules might evolve a 
construction equivalent to "Everyone must do some action."  And this 
construction has very different ramifications in a game without 101.

Continuing to an example of a more likely construction:

Rule 7777 (Mutable MI=1)
So you wanna leave, eh?

Every person, one day after deregistering for any reason, will mail $100
in U.S. Currency to all other active payers in the game.

Consider the "no penalty worse than deregistration" rule in combination 
with the above.  Deregistering itself invokes a heinous fate that can 
only be avoided by breaking the rule.  This seems a paradox wherein 
deregistration itself invokes a fate worse than deregistration.  Worse, 
since 113 only applies to Players, and a deregistered Player isn't one, 
there's no conflict between the Rules.

Obviously 113 is making assumptions flouted by this example: The 
assumption being, once a Player is no longer a Player, e ceases to be 
bound by the strictures of the Ruleset.

In my opinion, this is the true core of 101 and what it means to us.  
Rule 101, while it exists, prevents the claim that non-Players must 
abide by the Rules.  I think this (and 101's definitional character, 
whose absence would open a raft of near-invisible pitfalls) is the 
essence of Suber's warning.

One last example:

Consider the following part of Rule 869:

     "Registration occurs when a person who is not a Player sends a
      message to the Public Forum requesting to be Registered."

This obviously does not conflict with 101, since is attempts no 
compulsion.  There is no way for someone not a player to "break" this 
Rule.  It merely defines an Event that occurs when some non-Player does 

Consider the following amendment to 869:

Let Rule 869 be amended by adding the following paragraph:

     "Any person receiving the Public Forum for more than six months
      must Register as a Player as soon as possible."

By far this is the most "reasonable" of my examples, and much closer to
the form any potential conflict with 101 is likely to take.  But look at 
what this amendment is trying to do.  It is trying to compel an act 
(registration) of someone who is not a Player.  Without 101's delimit on 
the Ruleset's authority, this is a legal Rule.  With 101, it is the 
Caller's interpretation that a conflict exists and 101's precedence 
voids such an amendment, or any amendment like it.


Decision & Reasoning Judge:

Judgement: TRUE

Arguments: I believe this statement is TRUE, although not
for the reasons the caller infers. The caller claims the
force of 101 is to deny the applicability of the Rules
to non-Players. But this is trivial--the basic definition
of Player is that set of persons to whom the Rules apply.
If the term "Player" as used in 101 meant something
different than the regular English meaning, then it
would be possible to construe 101 as redefining this
logical relationship to admit or exclude other persons.
However, since 101 does not attempt to define "Player",
then as far as this Rule is concerned I am forced to claim that,
in this context, it is redundant. However, this does
make the caller's statement TRUE, it being a tautology.

I decline to include an injunction





Rule 101/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Obey the Rules

      All Players must always abide by all the Rules then in effect,
      in the form in which they are then in effect.  The Rules in the
      Initial Set are in effect at the beginning of the first game.
      The Initial Set consists of Rules 101-116 (Immutable) and
      201-219 (Mutable).

Initial Immutable Rule 101, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1480, Mar. 15 1995


Rule 116/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Permissibility of the Unprohibited

      Whatever is not prohibited or regulated by a Rule is permitted
      and unregulated, with the sole exception of changing the Rules,
      which is permitted only when a Rule or set of Rules explicitly or
      implicitly permits it.

Initial Immutable Rule 116, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1483, Mar. 15 1995


Rule 113/1 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Players May Always Forfeit

      A Player may always deregister from the Game rather than
      continue to play or incur a Game penalty.  No penalty worse
      than deregistration, in the judgment of the Player to incur 
      it, may be imposed.

Initial Immutable Rule 113, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1290, Oct. 27 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1304, Nov. 4 1994


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

      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.

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