Re: DIS: Re: OFF: assignment of appeal 1684a to HP2/Murphy, Zefram, BobTHJ
Ed Murphy wrote: is insufficient reason for a REVERSE; if the new judge justifies Eris's claim and once again judges TRUE, then the goal can still be reached by ITYM FALSE here. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
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
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Ed Murphy wrote: 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. No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity to modify Primo by the statement This is a binding Agreement governed by the Rules of Agora. The Gunneran ruleset contains no such statement. Its section 358 is the weak attempt to become a protectorate, which matches the *other* part of Primo charter section 1. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Zefram wrote: No it doesn't. Primo charter section 1 gives Agoran law the capacity to modify Primo by the statement This is a binding Agreement governed by the Rules of Agora. You have the habit of presenting as facts statements which are based on dubious Rules readings and arguable legal theory. Take the following agreement (specifically not a partnership): 1. We, the undersigned, both non-players, state that we make this agreement with the intent that it is binding under the Rules of Agora. [straight application of R1742] 2. As non-players, we state we are not subscribed to the fora, and thus, any Proposal purporting to change this agreement would not give us the reasonable opportunity to review changes as required per R101(v), and thus would not be binding to us. [here to prove the point, but even without this clause it may be inferred, and R101(v) has precedence over rules allowing proposals to make general changes]. 3. Party 1 agrees to transfer 100 quatloos to Party 2, for which Party 2 will give to Party 1 five miniature aardvarks. [the obligations of the parties]. 4. If either party has not complied with #3 by July 31, 2007, we accept the legal actions of the courts of Agora as binding in settling such a conflict. [implicit in #1 so not required, just spelled out for emphasis]. I would say the above agreement, which is *exactly* how agreements were used in the past, would not be bound by a change-by-proposal. (As a side note, it wouldn't even have to be published until a conflict arose via CFJ). If a proposal Repeal Clause 3 were passed, it would not be binding and the parties could still bring legal action against each other for violating clause 3. It is important that this limit of proposals be understood, as it is vital to the aim of the agreement, R101 rights, and civil cfj re-writes done last year, which were a step towards David's dream of seeing Agora as an arbitration service for independent contracts. I welcome a direct refuting my claim if it shows exactly why #2, above doesn't work, as this means something needs fixing. -Goethe
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Kerim Aydin wrote: I would say the above agreement, which is *exactly* how agreements were used in the past, would not be bound by a change-by-proposal. I've been assuming that the hypothetical agreement-changing proposal modifies (or otherwise overrides) rule 101 if it would get in the way. That would require a higher AI than is otherwise needed, of course. It's a practical obstacle that we'd need to consider if we wanted to actually modify a purported protectorate this way, but doesn't affect the constitutional theory. If P5091 passes, as seems likely, we'll never face it in practice. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: result of CFJ 1694
Zefram wrote: I've been assuming that the hypothetical agreement-changing proposal modifies (or otherwise overrides) rule 101 if it would get in the way. That would require a higher AI than is otherwise needed, of course. Ah, I see where you're coming from. May need a power-4 proposal, to overrule R101. It's a bit of a tangle, though, even with a power=4 proposal. R101 has precedence over R105-106 (giving instruments and proposals power, even of power 4), but the rule that gives R101 power is R2141, of lower precedence than R105-106. On the other hand, R101 explicitly claims precedence over all other power-3 rules for this matter of rights (its preamble), and the claim works by R1030. On third hand, R105-106 overrules R1030 (but only by applying R1030 itself). Out of this tangle, I'm tempted to rely on the last sentence of R1030 and say R101 (by numerics) wins and the rights are protected, even against power-4 proposals. Hhm. Maybe. You'll probably tell me that this is why the power- sorting out rule should have been made power-4. :-) BTW, I agree with your original statement if you assert it for protectorates or registered partnerships (because a registered partnership is informed of attempts to change by Proposal by its player's responsibilities to subscribe to the PF, and a protectorate is required to submit or it's not a protectorate). It's just generalizing to all agreements that I object to. -Goethe
