=============================  Inquiry 858  =============================

    Rule 1482 should be interpreted such that the meaning of a word used
    in a Rule is a part of the Rule's meaning, and therefore cannot be
    changed significantly by Rules of lower precedence.

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

Caller:                                 Zefram

Judge:                                  Chuck
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Coren
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 858a
Decision:                               REVERSE

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

History:

Called by Zefram:                       15 Feb 1996 09:43:00 GMT
Assigned to Chuck:                      15 Feb 1996 09:45:00 GMT
Chuck recused:                          22 Feb 1996 09:45:00 GMT
Assigned to Coren:                      28 Feb 1996 14:04:54 GMT
Judged TRUE by Coren:                   05 Mar 1996 18:14:55 GMT
Appealed by Kelly:                      05 Mar 1996 18:56:24 GMT
Appealed by elJefe:                     05 Mar 1996 20:33:44 GMT
Appealed by Steve:                      06 Mar 1996 06:24:19 GMT
Appeal 858a:                            06 Mar 1996 06:24:19 GMT
REVERSED on Appeal:                     08 Mar 1996 16:52:32 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

The Relevant Rules are 1030 and 1482.

I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor
to annotate the Ruleset with the Statement.

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

Judge Coren's Evidence:

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.

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

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

Rule 1497/2 (Mutable, MI=1)
Truth in Advertising

      No Player shall present, as correct, information which e
      believes to be incorrect in any of the following:
        -a post to the Public Forum
        -evidence in a COE, CFJ, or Judgement
        -a response to a request for information which the
         Player is required to provide.

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

      A Player who violates this Rule commits a Class B Crime.

[CFJ 827: If it is not clear that information is *not* presented
 as correct, it is.  Attempting an illegal move can, if the Player
 reports the move and knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this
 Rule.]

History:
Created by Proposal 1667, Aug. 18 1995
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 10 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2043, Dec. 11 1995

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

Rule 105/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
What Is a Rule Change?

      A Rule Change is any of the following:
        1) the enactment of a new Rule (a "Creation"). ;
        2) the amendment of an existing Rule (an "Amendment");
        3) the repeal of an existing Rule (a "Repeal");
        4) the modification of an existing Rule's Mutability Index (a
           "Mutation").

      Additional Rule Changes may be created by appropriate
      legislation.  No Rule Change may directly change any part of the
      Game State other than the Rules.  No Rule may be changed except
      by the means of a Rule Change of a type specified in the Rules.

[CFJ 708: An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rule
 Change.]

History:
Initial Immutable Rule 105, Jun. 30 1993
Mutated from MI=Unanimity to MI=3 by Proposal 1072, Oct. 4 1994
Amended by Proposal 1275, Oct. 24 1994
Renumbered from 1072 to 105 by Rule 1295, Nov. 1 1994

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

Rule 1339/3 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Rule Changes

      There are two types of Rule Change. A Proposed Rule Change is a
      Rule Change which appears in a Proposal, and which, insofar as
      the Rules permit it to take effect, has the effect of Creating,
      Amending, Mutating, Repealing or otherwise changing a Rule as
      defined elsewhere in the Rules, directly as a result of the
      passage of a Proposal. A non-Proposed Rule Change has the same
      effect as a Proposed Rule Change, but insofar as the Rules
      permit it to take effect, it does so not as the direct result
      of the passage of a Proposal, but rather, indirectly, as the
      result of the effect or action of a Rule.

      All Rule Changes, of either type, are subject to the following
      constraints:

      An individual Rule Change must change exactly one Rule.

      Any Rule Change which affects an existing Rule must clearly
      identify the Number of the Rule to be affected.

      Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the
      Mutability Index of the New Rule; however, if the Mutability
      Index is specified it must be greater than or equal to 1.  If
      the Mutability Index of any Rule created by a Rule Change is not
      specified, it shall be 1.

      Any Rule Change which creates a New Rule may specify the
      Category to which the New Rule will be assigned.  If the
      Category specified exists, the Rule shall be assigned to that
      Category.  If the Category specified does not exist, or no
      Category is specified, the Rulekeepor shall assign the Rule to
      an appropriate category of eir own choice.

      Any Rule Change which changes the Mutability Index of a Rule
      must clearly specify the new value of the Rule's Mutability
      Index.

      Any Rule Change which changes the text of a Rule must clearly
      and unambiguously specify the changes which are to be made. If
      the Rule Change quotes old text which is to be replaced with new
      text, then the quoted old text must match exactly with actual
      text in the Rule, with the exception of whitespace and
      capitalization. This takes precedence over Rules which would
      permit such differences, even if the differences would be
      considered inconsequential by such Rules.

      Any Rule Change which does not meet these criteria shall not
      have any legal force.

[CFJ 822: Any Change to the Rules in a way other than the two methods
described here is illegal.]

History:
Created by Proposal 1339, Nov. 29 1994
Amended(1) by Proposal 1414, Feb. 1 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 1440, Feb. 21 1995
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 1532, Mar. 24 1995
Amended(3) by Proposal 1754, Oct. 21 1995

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

Rule 1322/2 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Effectiveness of Rule Changes

      Every Rule Change shall have associated with it an Index, called
      its Power, which determines its ability to take effect.

      The Power of a non-Proposed Rule Change shall be the Mutability
      Index of the Rule in which the Rule Change is contained.

      The Power of a Proposed Rule Change shall be the Adoption Index
      of the Proposal in which the Rule Change is contained.

      No Rule Change may take effect unless its Power is not less than
      the current Mutation Index of the Rule it seeks to change, if
      any, and the Mutation Index that the Rule would possess after
      the change, if any.

History:
Created by Proposal 1322, Nov. 21 1994
Infected and Amended(1) by Rule 1454, Dec. 5 1995
Amended(2) by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996
Mutated from MI=1 to MI=3 by Proposal 2398, Jan. 20 1996

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

Judge Coren's Arguments:

And Coren saith unto him, "What is meaning?", and is very tempted to wash
his hands of this mess.  ;)  Instead, he refuses to release Barrabas,
since there's enough thieves wandering Agora at the moment.  <mwahahah>

This statement is actually composed of two parts, both of which must be
true for the Statement to be True:

1) "...the meaning of a word used in a Rule is part of the Rule's
meaning..." and

2) "...[a Rule's meaning] cannot be changed significantly by Rules of
lower precedence."

Both of these parts are intended to be applied against the Precedence
Rules, particularly 1482:

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

Rule 1482/0 (Semimutable, MI=3)
Precedence Between Rules with Unequal MI's

      In a conflict between Rules with different Mutability Indices,
      the Rule with the higher Mutability Index takes precedence over
      the Rule with the lower Mutability Index.

History:
Created by Proposal 1603, Jun. 19 1995
Infected, but not Amended by Rule 1454, Dec. 2 1995

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

This Judge will treat each of these two parts of the Statement in turn.

*** PART THE FIRST: ***

"...the meaning of a word used in a Rule is part of the Rule's
meaning..."

By far the easier of the two, if rather circular and indirect.  A Rule is
nowhere defined in the Rules themselves; however, it is self-evident that
the Rules, individually and as a whole, have a specific meaning expressed
within the common language of the Game - if they did not, both past and
future play would be (have been) impossible.

Within the common language of thhe Game (currently English), Rules are
made up paragraphs, sentences, sentence fragments, and individual words,
each of which is composed of one or more words, which can be defined as
the smallest units of language that communicate a meaning.  The meaning of
each higher level is defined by the interaction of the meanings of the
words which make it up:  thus, changing the meaning of a word within one
of those levels (including Rule) changes that meaning, and is part of it.

Therefore, this part of the Statement is trivially True.

*** PART THE SECOND: ***

2) "...[a Rule's meaning] cannot be changed significantly by Rules of
lower precedence."

Slightly more complicated; however:

1) This judge refuses to use R101 as an argument, since it is clear that
R101 only refers to the Rules as an integral unit.

2) R116 says that changing the Rules is "...permitted only when a Rule or
set of Rules explicitly or implicitly permits it."  So changing a Rule by
changing that Rule's meaning must be permitted somewhere else in the Rules.

3) R1497 (Truth in Advertising) prevents a Player from deliberately
misconstruing the content of a Rule if it results in some sort of
required message, or in a post to the public forum.  This in most cases
prevents a Player purposefully changing the meaning of a Rule without
changing the wording.

4) This means that the only way a Rule can be changed in this way is
through a Rule Change, controlled by R105, which states the types of Rule
changes permissable, of which the only one applicable is an Amendment
Rule Change, and through R1339, which defines Proposed Rule Changes and
Non-Propoosed Rule Changes.  Either of these can be used to change the
meaning of a Rule through changing its wording; however, such Rule
Changes (of either type) are ineffectual and incapable of changing a Rule
unless they are in a Proposal of an AI/MI equal to that of the Rule in
question, or derive from such a Proposal or Rule.

This leaves one final potential argument:  that the "inherent meaning" of
word *within the context of Agora* can be redefined by a low MI Rule, and
change the meaning of that word everywhere else in the game, including in
higher MI Rules.  The corolary to point One is that such an attempt
indeed changes the meaning of the Rule in question, and thus would
conflict with R116, which prohibits changing a Rule in any way not
defined by the Ruleset.  This mannner of change could not be the result
of an non-Rule Entity (which defers to all Rules in matters of
precedence); the other way to do it would be with a Non-proposed Rule
Change - which must be of an AI/MI such that its Power is high enough to
affect the Rule in question, per R1322.

Thus, the second part of the Statement is also TRUE, which leads to the
conclusion that this entire CFJ must be Judged ***TRUE***.

Note that this in the future could be changed by creating a new type of
Rule Change explicitly or implicitly allowing this type of change, or by
mutating a Rule making such a change possible to a higher MI that the
rule defining permissable Rule Changes (no such Rule currently exists).

Note that it could also be argued that such a change in meaning is
impermissible under the Rule prohibiting arbitrary changes to Entities,
since a cursory overview of the Rules in question leads me to believe
that Rules are indeed Nomic Entities.

> ======================================================================
>
> Requested Injunction:
>
> The Relevant Rules are 1030 and 1482.
>
> I request that the Judge issue an Injunction requiring the Rulekeepor
> to annotate the Ruleset with the Statement.
>
> -zefram

The Rulekeepor is so Injuncted.

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