Zefram wrote:
I call for appeal of Primo's judgement of CFJ 1694. Arguments:
[snip]
This case has similarities to CFJ 1704. In that case, concerning Primo
Corporation, the judge ruled that the possibility of direct modification
of Primo's charter by the adoption of an Agoran proposal satisfied
the requirement of unrestricted access to modify. However, that logic
only applies because Primo Corporation's charter is a R1742 agreement,
governed by the rules of Agora.
Gunner Nomic 2.0's ruleset is a binding agreement, according to its
rule 357.2, but it is not governed by the rules of Agora. It was
formed independently from Agora, with no intention that it be subject
to modification by the operation of Agoran law. Nothing in the Gunneran
ruleset makes it adjudicable under Agoran contract law.
Counterargument:
Gunneran rule 358 copies Agoran Rule 106's force of law to Gunner
in exactly the same fashion as Primo charter section 1 copies it
to Primo.
Another question, addressed only tangentially so far, is whether
the Protectorate's rule allowing Agora to make changes is made
ineffective by other rules of the Protectorate. Investigating
that question now, I find the following:
* Other Gunneran rules regulated either resolutions (the Gunneran
equivalent of proposals), or rule changes in general. The former
were inapplicable to Agoran proposals by definition; the latter
failed to impose any restrictions that would prevent Gunneran
rule 358.1(b) from doing what it said it did.
* Similarly, other Primo charter sections (the Primo equivalent of
rules) regulate issues (the Primo equivalent of proposals), but
none of them regulate rule changes in general.
Gunner's current rules and resolution history are currently located at
http://www.gunnerrpg.com/nomic/viewtopic.php?t=62
