On 09/13/2011 10:16 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Mon, 12 Sep 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: >> Judge woggle's Arguments: >> >> I judge CFJ 3086 FALSE. Agora's players are capable of receiving >> messages from the fora, and Agora is capable of sending messages to >> Agoran fora via the mechanisms by which it can act (e.g. via proposal >> passing an appropriate rule directing the message to be sent on its >> behalf). Agora's internal decision-making processes which might cause >> it to participate it in the fora are considerably more cumbersome than >> a typical player's, but this internal fault does not implicate R101. > > If there were a rule that stated "Woggle CANNOT legally post messages > on eir own behalf; only the passage a proposal containing eir message > CAN do so" wouldn't you feel that your right to participate was being > infringed upon?
If B Nomic were a player of Agora, and B contained a rule that stated "B CANNOT post messages to Agora on eir own behalf; only the passage of a B proposal containing eir message CAN do so" would you feel that its right to participate was being infringed upon? A second-class person doesn't have a naturally-occurring ability to send messages. Legislation primarily tends to construct, rather than restrict, that ability.
