I submit the following proto-proposal, entitled {Constitutional
Anarchy}. Its adoption index is 3, its interest index is 3.
{{{
When interpreting the text of this proposal, it is treated as if text
contained within square brackets did not exist; they are merely
annotations for the convenience of Agora.
Retitle Rule 101 to {The Agoran Charter of Rights and Freedoms}, change
its power to 3.5, and amend it to read as follows:
{{
WHEREAS Agora, since its inception, has functioned not only as a
game but as a society, and
WHEREAS a society, to function, must balance its laws with the
natural rights of its participants, and
WHEREAS the rights of its participants,
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that the Agoran Charter of Rights and
Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in its subject
only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be
demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, and
[Copied from the Canadian Charter; basically says that rights are
not necessarily absolute.]
BE IT HEREBY PROCLAIMED that this Rule take precedence over every
other Rule, contract, or other aspect of society.
i. Every person has the freedom to perform actions that are not
prohibited or regulated by the Rules, with the sole
exception of changing the Rules.
ii. Every person has the right to participate in the decision
process leading to any and all changes in the Rules.
ii. Every person has the right to initiate a formal process to
resolve matters of controversy, in the reasonable
expectation that the controversy will thereby be resolved.
Every person has the right to cause formal reconsideration
of any judicial determination that e should be punished.
iii. Every player has the right to participate in the judgment of
matters of controversy, including the violation of rights as
described later in this rule.
iv. Every person has the freedom to refuse to become party to
a binding agreement. The absence of a person's explicit,
willful consent shall be considered a refusal.
v. Every person has the freedom to not be considered bound by
an agreement, or an amendment to an agreement, or a Rule
Change, which e has not had the reasonable opportunity to
review.
vi. Every person has the right to not be penalized more than
once for any single action or inaction. However, this
right is not violated by replacing part or all of a
penalty with a different but comparable penalty, e.g. when
the rules governing penalties are amended, or when the first
penalty is found inapprorpiate.
vii. Every player has the freedom to deregister rather than
continue to play.
viii. Every player has the freedom to participate in the fora.
Every use of 'right' or 'freedom' in the Rules refers only to the
above rights and freedoms, unless explicitly specified.
Every person has the right and ability to initiate a formal
inquiry into whether or not a person's (not necessarily eir own)
rights or freedoms have been violated beyond what is justified
according to this Rule, and, if that is the case, to have that
person or persons fairly restituted for the violation. Nothing in
Agora can cause this ability to be revoked from any person; any
attempt to do so, including a Rule Change that would remove the
process, is of no force or effect, unless said attempt first
removes this clause.
[This paragraph stipulates that there must exist some means for a
potential rights violation to be fixed. Most importantly, it
enshrines the process, allowing it to depend on lower-power rules
(such as the court system) without being vulnerable to changes to
them - if the low-power rule would be amended to make a rights
inquiry not work, then the amendment fails.]
The rights and freedoms granted by this rule do not create allow
any actions to be taken, even if those actions would be necessary
to ensure that those rights and freedoms are respected. Likewise,
they do not prohibit any action, even if that action would
violate a right or freedom. Rather, it provides a means for a
player to correct any injustices under these rights, and provides
guidance for Agorans in the shaping of the Rules.
The rights and freedoms set out in this rule do affect the
legality of actions. In particular, it is illegal to deny someone
their rights under this rule to the extent that those rights are
justified and an otherwise-illegal action is legal and required if
it is the sole way to ensure someone's rights are not unfairly
violated. Denying someone their rights (except to the extent
permitted by this rule) is to be considered the most severe crime
possible, even though the actual penalty may be lesser than
another.
[These two paragraphs stipulate that while ensuring someone's
rights takes precedence over other aspects of legality, they do
not allow or prohibit actions from taking place.]
Please treat Agora right good forever.
}}
Create a new power-3.5 rule called {Rights Tribunals} with this text:
{{
Rights Tribunals are a subclass of judicial cases. The purpose
of a Rights Tribunal is to determine whether a person or persons'
rights or freedoms have been violated, and, if so, correct the
injustice.
Any person can initiate a Rights Tribunal, specifying whose rights
or freedoms e believes were violated, the specific rights and/or
freedoms, and the manner of the violation.
A Rights Board is an implicitly-created entity responsible for
judging Rights Tribunals. Each Rights Board contains one or more
biological players (its members). A Rights Board's basis is the
set of its members. The only entities qualified to judge a Rights
Tribunal are the Rights Boards containing either 9 members or
every biological player, whichever is fewer players.
When a Rights Board is the judge of Rights Tribunal with an open
judicial question, any member of the Board can, by announcement,
select a valid judgment for that question. Selecting a judgment
cancels the selection of any other judgment. If, at any time, a
judgment has been selected by at least 51% of the members of the
Board, any member can by announcement cause the Board to assign
that judgment to that question. A Rights Board is only considered
to be late on delivering a judgment if no judgment has been
selected by one of its members in the time normally allotted for
judgment.
After one week of a given player being on a Rights Board with an
open question, that player has not yet selected a judgment for
that question, any other member of that board can dismiss em from
the Rights Board by announcement, removing em from the board. When
a player has been dismissed, a member of the Board other than the
one dismissing the player can replace em by announcement,
selecting another player who has never been a member of that
Board. That player joins the Board. It is illegal to be dismissed
from a Rights Board.
A Rights Tribunal has a judicial question of violation, which is
applicable at all times. The valid judgments for this question
are:
* VIOLATED, appropriate if the right or freedom has indeed been
violated in the manner specified in the initiation, and such a
violation is not permitted under the Charter.
* JUSTIFIED, appropriate if the right or freedom has indeed been
violated in the manner specified in the initiation, but that
violation is permitted under the Charter.
* NOT VIOLATED, appropriate if the right or freedom has not been
violated, or was violated in a manner other than the one
specified in the initiation.
A Rights Tribunal has a judicial question of remedy, which is
applicable at all times the question of violation has a judgment
of VIOLATED. The valid judgments for this question are sets of
actions encompassing changes to the game state, except for Rule
Changes. Such a judgment is applicable only if it provides a fair
remedy for the violation of a player's rights, and if it attempts
to prevent future violations of the same nature from occuring in
the future. When a judgment is assigned to a judicial question of
remedy, those actions are performed, notwithstanding any rules
that would make them illegal or impossible.
A proposal submitted as part of a judgment for a qestion of remedy
is a Rights Proposal (and no other proposal is). A Rights Proposal
shall always be marked as such, for instance during distribution.
A Rights Proposal has the ability to make arbitrary Rule Changes,
rules to the contrary notwithstanding.
[a Rights Proposal does not need to satisfy normal AI requirements
because it will effectively have unlimited power due to this
rule.]
}}
Assign Rights Tribunals an ID Number of 102.
}}}
