[Rules 1-100] [Rules 101-200] [Rules 201-300] [Rules 301-400] [Rules 401-500] [Rules 501-600]


Rule 201/2(m) : Order of Play
Players shall alternate alphabetical order by the concatenation of their surnames and forenames, taking one whole turn apiece. Turns may not be skipped or passed, and parts of turns may not be omitted. All Players begin with zero points.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
1. Clarified by Judgment 26, 12 September 1998
2. Altered by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998

Rule 202/6(m) : Parts of a Turn
One turn consists of three parts, in this order: (1) a debate period, (2) a voting period, (3) a voting-related scoring period.

The debate period shall be 192 hours (8 days) in duration. Immediately upon the expiration of the debate period, a call for votes is made on all and only active Proposals at that time, thus beginning the 48 hour voting period. Voting-related scoring occurs immediately upon the expiration of the voting period, and is instantaneous in duration.

A new turn shall begin immediately following the completion of each turn.

0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
1. Clarified by Judgment 26, 12 September 1998
2. Amended by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
3. Amended by Proposal 356, 1 December 1998
4. Amended by Proposal 434, 4 February 1999
5. Amended by Proposal 511, 27 May 1999
6. Amended by Proposal 548, 26 July 1999

Rule 203/1(m) : Necessary Votes for Rule Changes
A proposal will become a rule if it receives a simple majority of the total non-neutral votes. This rule defers to all other rules.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Combined with Rule 306/0 by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998

Rule 204/3(m) : Opposed Minority Scoring
If and when rule-changes can be adopted without unanimity, the Players who vote against winning Proposals shall each receive a number of points equal to 5*(favorable votes/non-neutral votes), rounded to the nearest integer.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
2. Altered by Administrative Review, 26 October 1998
3. Amended by Proposal 555, 25 August 1999

Rule 205/1(m) : Immediate Effectiveness and Enactment Ordering
Proposals adopted as a result of the same voting period are considered to have passed in numerical order from least to greatest. An adopted rule-change takes full effect at the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Amended by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998

Rule 206/1(m) : Defeated Proposals Scoring
When a Proposal is defeated, the Player who proposed it loses 5 points.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Amended by Proposal 556, 25 August 1999

Rule 207/0(m) : One Vote
Each player always has exactly one vote.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
Rule 208/2(m) : Winning by Points
The winner is the first Player to achieve 500 (positive) points.
0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
2. Amended by Rule 410/0, 15 January 1999

Rule 211/1(m) : Rule Precedence
If two or more mutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule most recently changed takes precedence. If two or more immutable rules conflict with one another, then the rule with the lowest ordinal number takes precedence.

If at least one of the immutable rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the numerical method for determining precedence.

If at least one of the mutable rules in conflict explicitly says of itself that it defers to another rule (or type of rule) or takes precedence over another rule (or type of rule), then such provisions shall supersede the chronological method for determining precedence.

If two or more rules claim to take precedence over one another or to defer to one another, then the appropriate method (numerical or chronological) again governs.

0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
1. Amended by Proposal 330, 6 October 1998

Rule 213/0(m) : Winning through Impossibility of Further Play
If the rules are changed so that further play is impossible, or if the legality of a move cannot be determined with finality, or if by the Judge's best reasoning, not overruled, a move appears equally legal and illegal, then the first player unable to complete a turn is the winner.

This rule takes precedence over every other rule determining the winner.

0. Initial Mutable Rule, 12 March 1998
Rule 214/4(m) : Requests for Judgment and Appeals
Any Player may, at any time, initiate judicial proceedings in any matter through a Request for Judgment.

A Case corresponding to a Request for Judgment is opened at the time that said Request is made. The Player making the Request is the Plaintiff in the Case.

All Requests for Judgment must unambiguously name a Defendant and explicitly provide a Statement to be judged.

Any subset of the set of Players and Officers may be named as Defendants, as may the game itself.

A Player may appeal a Judgment iff less than 36 hours have passed since its issuance, it was not issued by the Supreme Court, and e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in the Case.

0. Created and split from Rule 212/0 by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 5 August 1998
2. Altered by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
3. Amended by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
4. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 215/5(m) : Selection of Judges
Players in the Judicial Pool, with the following exceptions, are eligible to become Lower Court Judges on a Case:

i. the Plaintiff
ii. the Defendant
iii. Supreme Court Justices

Exceptions shall be waived from greatest to least in the event that such restrictions prevent a Lower Court from being chosen.

Whenever it is necessary to select a Judge for a Lower Court, the Administrator shall randomly select an eligible Player.

0. Created and split from Rule 212/0 by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
2. Amended by Proposal 469, 13 April 1999
3. Self-amended, 13 April 1999
4. Amended by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
5. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 216/4(m) : Lower Courts
A Judge selected to a Lower Court must issue a public Judgment on the Case within four days or be subject to a ten point fine.

A Lower Court is dissolved if it lapses or its Judges return the same response within the allowed time.

A Lower Court Judge's tenure ends upon the dissolving of eir Court, at which time e relinquishes the title of Judge and its associated powers and privileges.

0. Created and split from Rule 212/0 by Administrative Review, 21 July 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 5 August 1998
1. Clarified by Judgment 21, 7 September 1998
2. Altered by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
3. Amended by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
4. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 220/3(m) : Effects of Judgments
Rules must be followed in accordance with the final response to a Statement in each Case, with the exception that no Judgment by a Lower Court may prevent the Supreme Court from reviewing said Judgment.

Game actions found to be illegal must be undone, as must all actions made possible solely or in part by said illegal actions, but only as allowed by the Statute of Limitations.

0. Created by Administrative Review, 22 July 1998
0. Clarified by Judgment 24, 7 September 1998
0. Clarified by Judgment 28, 13 September 1998
1. Altered by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
2. Amended by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
3. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 222/3(m) : Proposal Scoring
Proposers receive (20)(favorable votes on the Proposal/total non-neutral votes on the Proposal) points, rounded to the nearest integer, for each adopted Proposal.
0. Created by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
0. Repealed by Proposal 358, 12 December 1998
1. Renumbered from Rule 352/0 by Proposal 358, 12 December 1998
2. Amended by Proposal 371, 12 December 1998
3. Amended by Proposal 383, 5 January 1999

Rule 223/0(m) : Proposal Activity
Players may change the states of their proposals from inactive to active and vice versa by sending a message to that effect to the mailing list. New Proposals are active by default.
0. Created by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
Rule 224/0(m) : Proposal Vitality and Withdrawal
Players may, with no penalty, withdraw proposals from consideration at any time except during voting on the proposals. Proposals become dead upon their being withdrawn, and must be resubmitted if they are to be reconsidered. New Proposals are live by default.
0. Created by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
Rule 225/0(m) : Proposal Limit
No player may, at any time, have more than ten live proposals.
0. Created by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
Rule 226/0(m) : Proposals and Forfeiting
If a Player forfeits, that Player's active proposals remain active, while the Player's inactive proposals are automatically withdrawn. Points owed to a former Player are not to be awarded.
0. Created by Rule 315/0, 26 September 1998
Rule 227/1(m) : Vacant Offices
If an Officeholder forfeits or goes into Limbo, e automatically resigns from the Office at that time.

In the absence of a current Officeholder for an Office, the Administrator holds the Office until a new Officeholder is selected pursuant to the rules for filling the Office.

0. Created by Administrative Review, 26 October 1998
1. Amended by Proposal 519, 16 June 1999

Rule 228/2(m) : Judgments
A Judgment must consist of a legal response to the Statement to be judged, and either the Judge's analysis of the Statement and response, or an explicit statement of concurrence with an opinion issued by another Judge on the Court.

Only Statements and their corresponding responses are considered to have official legal standing, and only Judges chosen in accordance with the rules may issue Judgments.

The set of legal responses to Statements is defined as {TRUE, FALSE, DISMISSED}. DISMISSED indicates that a Statement cannot be evaluated as to its veracity or does not address a rules-related matter; or that its Request for Judgment names extraneous or irrelevant Defendants, or provides no analysis of the Statement. TRUE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically true. FALSE indicates that a Statement can be evaluated as to its veracity, addresses a rules-related matter, and is logically false. No other responses are allowed.

All decisions by all Judges must be made in accordance with all the rules then in effect; but when the rules are silent, inconsistent, or unclear on the point at issue, then Judges shall consider game-custom and the spirit of the game before applying other standards.

0. Created by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
1. Amended by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
2. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 229/4(m) : Offices
The set of Offices is defined as {Administrator, Foreign Minister, Treasury Minister, Lower Court Judge, Justice}. Upon the passage of a Proposal altering this set, the set shall amend itself to reflect the changes.

Entities holding Offices are Officeholders.

Players may resign from any Offices they hold at any time.

This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules or portions of Rules dealing with Offices.

0. Created by Administrative Review, 1 November 1998
0. Clarified by Judgment 46, 15 December 1998
0. Clarified by Judgment 47, 15 December 1998
1. Amended by Proposal 389, 5 January 1999
2. Amended by Proposal 395, 5 January 1999
3. Amended by Proposal 447, 14 March 1999
4. Self-amended, 25 August 1999

Rule 230/1(m) : Judicial Process
Upon each Request for Judgment, the following procedure is executed:

1. A Case is opened on the Request for Judgment.

2. A Lower Court is selected to rule on the Statement.

3. If, at any time after the initial selection, the Lower Court has no Judge, or if the Lower Court lapses, it is dissolved; if possible, a new Lower Court is selected; if not, the procedure skips to step 6.

4. The Lower Court issues a Judgment, at which time the Court dissolves.

5. If a legal Appeal of the Lower Court's Judgment is made, the Supreme Court must either grant the Appeal, and then may issue a Judgment; or deny the Appeal.

6. At such time as no further legal Appeals in the Case are possible, the Case is closed and the Lower Court Judge on the Case is paid.

This Rule takes precedence over all other Rules dealing with the Judiciary.

0. Created by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
1. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 231/1(m) : Cases
A Case consists of a Statement and all judicial documents produced by the Plaintiff, Defendant, and Courts assigned to the Statement.
0. Created by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
1. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 232/1(m) : The Judicial Pool
The Judicial Pool shall consist only of all Players having publicly consented to selection as Judges. A Player may, at any time, add or remove only emself from the Judicial Pool.

Players entering Limbo are automatically removed from the Judicial Pool.

Justices are automatically in the Judicial Pool.

In the event that no Players are in the Judicial Pool, all Players not in Limbo are automatically placed in the Judicial Pool.

0. Created by Proposal 516, 5 June 1999
1. Amended by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999

Rule 233/2(m) : The Supreme Court
Justices are Judges serving on the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall consist of five elected Justices. No Player may hold more than one Justiceship at a time.

If, within 48 hours of an Appeal, at least two eligible Justices explicitly declare their willingness to grant said Appeal, the Supreme Court shall hear the Case.

The Supreme Court issues a Judgment on a Case to which it has granted a hearing when a simple majority of the eligible Justices have publicly returned the same response to the Statement.

If the Supreme Court fails to issue a Judgment within seven days on a Case to which it has granted a hearing, the Lower Court Judgment stands.

0. Created by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999
1. Self-amended, 25 August 1999
2. Amended by Proposal 563, 24 September 1999

Rule 234/0(m) : Conflict of Interest
A Justice is ineligible to rule on in a Case iff e is the Plaintiff or Defendant in that Case.
0. Created by Proposal 538, 25 August 1999
Tue 09 Nov 1999 15:03:38 -0600