(?) means that I have more than normal doubts whether the judgement still
    holds, given the changes in the Ruleset.

Note: I'm missing the CFJs numbered 1107, and the appelate judgements of
1125 and 1169.

See for the subject 'Game Entities (general)' Rule 1586
See for the subject 'Timing' Rule 478

Interpretations of Rules, general (CFJ's before 840 are not included here):
favor, 843:
If a Rule says 'X and Y must happen', and X is impossible, or disallowed by
a higher-precedene Rule, this does not stop Y from happening.
Swann, 861:
If a Rule says 'if X cannot happen, then Y will occur', then Y will happen
if there is no Rule which allows X to happen, even though the Rules might be
changed in such a way that X can happen.
Swann, 880:
It's allowed for a Rule to state a falsehood; this does not invaluate a Rule.

101:
Oerjan, 024:
Players have to abide to the Rules even in out-of-game actions.
???, ???:
"abide by all the Rules" means the Rules as a whole, not necessarily each
individual Rule
Appeal Board, 825:
If Rule 101 would be repealed the Players would still be forced to abide by
the Rules.
Vlad, 837:
No Rule has coercive force on a person who is not a Player.
favor, 847:
Andre, 853:
Deregistration happens at the time when the Player makes the request to 
deregister. This Rule cannot be used to deregister retroatively.
Steve, 900:
Breaking any Rule implies breaking Rule 101.
Andre, 907:
If a Proposal contains a number of changes to the game state, some of which
would be forbidden by Rule 101, the other Rule Changes would still be
effective.
Antimatter, 920:
This does not forbid a change to the rules such that instantaneously
thereafter modification is prevented, but after some definite finite time
interval such a modification is possible again.
Steve, 1048:
The Rules have agency, that is, they have the capability to make things
happen.
t, 1194:
Breaking the Rules is considered to be illegal.
Wes, 1195:
Doing what is forbidden by the Rules is breaking the Rules.
If there is a penalty on something, it is prohibited.
Not all disadvantages imposed by the Rules are penalties.

105:
Chuck, 708:
An Amendment of a non-existing Rule is not a legal Rulechange.
t, 1218:
The addition or removal of blank lines, or other whitespace, is not
a rule change. (note: this Judgement explicitly does not extend itself
to reformatting)
Blob, 1244:
A Rule's title is not a substantive property of a Rule.

107:
Steve, Michael, appeal 1089:
The version of the rule change that got voted upon will be adopted, even
if it is not the version that was originally submitted.

108:
Michael, 001:
This does not forbid Rules to be explicitly dependent on circumstances before
they are enacted, for example the vote on the Proposal that created the Rule.
Chuck, 944:
This also applies to indirect effects - a Rule Change may not only not have
retroactive application, it may also not effect things in a way such that
they effect things at a time before the Rule Change took effect.

115:
elJefe (upheld by Appeal Board), 700:
Self-amending and self-repealing Rules are allowed.

217:
Oerjan, 684:
see 789
Macross, 897:
Determinations of the members of a Appeal Board are Judgements for the 
purpose of this Rule.
Steve, 1139:
Game custom tells judges to consider the reasoning behind past Judgements
as well as the Judgements themselves.
Judges need not follow past Judgements, they only need to consider them.
Steve, 1217:
A Judgement that does not accord with the Rules is nevertheless a
Judgement.

459:
harvel, 1175:
This Rule does not apply to time periods of a certain number of weeks or
months. The month count for such time periods is not incremented on the
first of the week or month.
harvel, 1148:
Midnight is at 00:00.

478:
Vanyel, 707:
Something that is sent to the Public Forum becomes effective at the moment it
is received by the listserver.
Swann, 752:
Something sent to someone in such a way that that person has the obligation
to send it to all Players is sufficient for it having been sent to the
Public Forum. (upheld upon appeal by CotC) (?)
Coco, 813 (upheld in Concurring Opinion):
A Player does not need to prove that e can receive the Public Forum.
Zefram, 831 (upheld in Concurring Opinion):
The Events contained in a message do not necessarily occur at the time of the
Date: header.
Steve, 865:
The time a Player receives a certain message is when the machine which stores
this Player's mail receives it, regardless of if and when that Player actually
reads eir mail.
Oerjan, 866 (upheld in Concurring Opinion):
A player 'receives' a message at the time it reaches eir private machine or
eir private account on a shared machine (but not the shared machine itself,
if the recipient does not control it).
General Chaos, 915:
A message does not count as not received by a person for the sole reason that
it is in a language or code which cannot be deciphered by em.
elJefe, 916:
If a Player receives a message through email, it counts as being received by
em, even if it was sent neither through the Public Forum nor to em personally.
Blob, 1114:
General Chaos, 1115:
A message sent to all players otherwise than through the Public Forum has
to explicitly state it is intended to be a message to the Public Forum.
Peekee, 1132:
If the Rules require someone to do something, but place no time limits upon
this obligation, it nevertheless has to be done in a timely manner. (?)
Crito, 1170:
Blob, 1171:
Crito, 1173:
Palnatoke, 1179:
If the Rules require a Player to act on a message in a certain
way upon receiving it - without restrictions on the method of
delivery - and the Player receives the message via a discussion
forum, then e is still required to act on it in that way.
Sherlock, 1084:
lee, 1204:
Something has been sent to the Public Forum at the time it is sent, not
at the time it is received.
???, ??? (quoted in 1245):
Chuck, 1245:
For actions which have no specified time limit, the actual time limit, if
there is any, is more than a week.

591:
Chuck, 794 (not in Judgement, but in remark of CotC):
A Judgement may be delivered in the form 'if X then TRUE else FALSE', but only
if it is unambiguous whether X is false or true itself.

594:
Michael, 882:
Oerjan, 884:
Steve, 885:
A Proposal may contain provisions that are conditional on other factors.
Oerjan, 884:
Steve, 885: (this is a REVERSAL from Michael, 882)
Such a conditional provision is, for the purpose of Adoption Index, part
of the Proposal, even if the conditional is not fulfilled.

649:
Oerjan, 904:
If a non-existent Patent Title is awarded to a person, then this implicitly
creates that Title

683:
Oerjan, 117:
A Vote takes place at the moment it is sent to the Assessor, not when it is
counted.
Kelly, 1217:
A synonym for 'FOR', 'AGAINST' or 'ABSTAIN' if and only if it is obvious
to the Assessor.

693:
Appeal Board, 1110:
If the Voting Period for a Proposal is shortened to a period shorter than
the time from its beginning to the time it is shortened, it ends at the
time of the shortening.

754:
elJefe, appeal 744:
This Rule only applies to those differences explicitly named in the Rule.
KoJen, appeal 744:
In the context of Rule Changes, nothing short of exact quoting of the text to
be amended can be construed as unambiguous.
Chuck, 754 (although not as part of the Judgement, but in a remark of the
CotC):
Replacing a phrase by a logical equivalent statement falls under this rule
if the logical equivalence is unambiguous.
Appeal Board, 910:
Synonyms need not be in one language, a translation, as long as it is
unambiguous, is among the variations allowed by this Rule. Agora does not 
have a specified language.
Morendil, appeal 1089:
When a certain text has to be copied, for example in the Distribution of
a Proposal, the limits are much stricter than those in this Rule.
The list of allowed differences in this Rule is not exhaustive, there may
be differences, not mentioned in this Rule, that are also inconsequential.

789:
Oerjan, 684:
Such an Annotation is, for the purposes of Rule 217, regarded as part of Game
Custom.
An Annotation is not just to be considered during judging, but also in the
everyday application of the Rule.
Appeal Board, 825:
A Rule cannot be interpreted in such a way that something is the case if the
Rule would be repealed. A Statement claiming such an interpretation should be
judged FALSE.
Appeal Board, 860:
Such an Order may only be issued if the statement claims that a certain Rule
has to be interpreted in a certain way, not if it claims the Rules in general
have to be interpreted in a certain way.

869:
Ian, 805:
'Person' in this Rule refers to a natural person, not to Legal Persons
(such as an Organization). Furthermore, naming something 'person' does not
make it a person in the context of this Rule.
Andre, 833:
The Player and the person being the Player are identical.
The act of registration does not create the Player, it merely causes em to
get the property of being a Player.
elJefe, 869:
If a person who is not a Player performs a legal action (eg by sending a
message to the PF), and later becomes a Player, then that action is an action
by that Player.
Michael, 886:
More than one person can be the same Player.

880:
Peekee, 1223:
If a non-Electee resigns from an Office, or an Electee resigns without
appointing a successor, the Electee or Speaker starts holding that Office
immediately.

991:
Chuck, 888:
Non-Players may make CFJs.
favor, 918:
If the subject header of a message states it is a CFJ, this is sufficient to
be a Call for Judgement, even if the message itself does not do so.

1003:
JonRock, 756 (upheld by Appeal Board, although the Judgement wasn't):
This does include Proposals which create Rules which penalize people based
on their voting. In this case it's still the Proposal that does the coercing,
although it is the Rule that does the penalizing. (REVERSAL of Oerjan, 753)
There is no coercion if the penalizing is not dependent on a Player's vote on
the Proposal.
Coercion is still present if the Rule imposing the penalty is not the Rule
created or amended by the Proposal.
Appelate Court, 756:
Not every Proposal which penalizes people based on their voting is coercive,
only if the threat is large enough to be effective.
Steve, 876:
A Proposal is coercive only if it leaves the Players hardly any other chance
but to vote against eir conscience. A modest bribe is not enough for coercion
to be present.

1016:
Jeffrey S., 698:
A Player who is not active may not vote, but e may influence the voting
Result.
Wes, 1154:
Rule 1016 does not forbid players who are not active from getting a position
that requires a duty or action of them, it just prevents the requirement
itself.
Andre, 1242:
Changing one's activity level happens immediately when the announcement in the
Public Forum is made, one cannot make an announcement that one changes one's
activity level at some later time.

1023:
Kolja, appeal 1150:
This requirement does not hold for players who are inactive.

1030:
Proglet, 1104:
A deference clause does not prevent a conflict with another Rule from
arising, but only shows how such a conflict is to be resolved.

1043:
Coco, 810:
If in one message a Player deregisters as well as doing other things (such as
registering), Rule 1527 applies.

1069:
Down with 815!, 738:
If no Amendment Number is added, it must be taken that the newest version of a
Rule is meant.

1079:
Michael, 832:
A Dice-roll server is sufficiently random to fall under the definition of this
Rule.
elJefe, 834:
If something is described in the Rules as being some Player's choice, and that
Player decides to make the decision random, that Player is the one who has to
make the random determination.
Morendil, 1105:
The closing price of the Dow Jones is insufficiently random.

1339:
General Chaos, 1067:
Stating that a certain text should be 'added' to a Rule is insufficiently
precise, as it does not specify where it should be added.

1431:
General Chaos, 919:
Any message claiming an error in another message in representing the
Game State is a COE, even if it is not labeled as such.
Any COE made by the Player who has to react to that COE can be regarded
as implicitly being admitted [provided it contains the necessary correction 
to the post being claimed to be in error]
If a Player posts a message to the Public Forum containing information of
a nature similar to that in a previous message by the same Player, and such
a message contains statements to the effect that the previous message was
in error, and corrections to that error, this counts as a COE of the older
post and an admission thereof.

1447:
In the Judgement of the Appeal of 1240 the Justices regarded it legal to
overturn a Judgement which they thought was possibly correct, because it
did not have any Judge's arguments, while the case in question would warrant
those.

1467:
Palnatoke, 1225:
A negative amount of Currency cannot exist.

1478:
General Chaos, 1060:
A Player who is not eir own Executor, may nevertheless do any action that
the Rules say that Player may do.
Peekee, 1231:
If a Player who is the Executor of some Entity X says "X does so-and-so",
this is sufficient to count as "making it clear that e is acting on behalf
of X".

1482:
Appeal Board, 858:
A Rule can clarify the meaning of a word in a Rule with higher precedence,
or give a more precise definition. This is not a conflict in the sense meant
in this Rule. However, if the redefinition completely changes the meaning of
the words, this might still be disallowed under this Rule.
Murphy, 1103: A Rule that does not take precedence over Rule 1482 cannot
defer to a Rule of lower power.

1483:
Vlad, 717:
Comments are not part of the text of a Proposal.
Andre, pro-Speaker 762:
Anything which is contained in a Proposal is part of a Proposal, unless the
Rules or Game Custom specifically say otherwise.
Oerjan, 877:
Something is a Proposal only if it is clearly designated as such, that is, if
there is no reasonable reading which would let them be otherwise.
Steve, 1112:
It is not sufficient to create a Proposal to just send it to the Public
Forum, it must also have arrived at the PF. (?)
Macross, 1113:
Quoting a previous failed attempt to create a Proposal does not constitute
creating that Proposal.

1486:
Vlad, 1118:
Stating "I hereby call for the Impeachment of Officer X" on the Public Forum
is an action of calling a Referendum to impeach Officer X.

1497:
elJefe, 827 (weakened by Beefurabi, 1127/Oerjan, 1128/Blob, 1129):
If it is not made sufficiently clear that certain information is NOT 
'presented as if it were true', it is such. This is certainly the case if
several 
Players believe it to be presented as correct.
elJefe, 827:
Attempting an illegal action can, if the Player reports the action, and
knows it to be illegal, be a violation of this Rule.
Appeal Board, 1126:
The headers of a message are part of that message. Posting a message with
a deliberately falsified 'From' header violates this Rule.

1503:
Oerjan in the Judgement of CFJ 1096 opinions that committing a Crime is
not necessarily breaking the Rules, but also notes that others disagree.

1504:
lee, 1232:
One cannot be penalized for a Crime except by a Sentencing Order.

1513:
Steve, 938:
If a body of text has been read by a Player, then the information in that
body of text has been provided to that Player. It is not necessary that
the Rules oblige such a provision.
Michael in CFJ 1093 doubts whether the last paragraph also holds for the
Ruleset.

1558:
General Chaos, 1071:
The Speaker may not nominate for the Office of Speaker-Elect.

1565:
Michael, 886:
(ii) does not apply if there is a determination that is probably true. (?)
Appeal Board, 903:
If another Rule gives other reasons for dismissing a Proposal, then such is
not implicitly a definition of 'lacks standing'.
Steve, 1217:
If a CFJ has been dismissed which should not be, this does not cause the
CFJ to have not been dismissed.

1567:
Kolja A. (upheld upon Appeal), 1101:
It is only possible to make oneself Ineligible to Judge a specific CFJ
after this CFJ has been called.

1575:
harvel, 1230:
The stricter standards of proof to find someone guilty of a Crime also apply
when the statement of the CFJ is that someone is not guilty of a Crime.

1579:
elJefe, 828:
If the Mintor of a Currency is changed, the Currency ceases to exist.

1586:
Michael, 803:
If 2 Rules try to give the same name to different Entities, the Entities do
not merge, but the second attempt to name fails.
Being known as something is not the same as being named something.
Chuck, 816: *check*
If an Entity, being redefined, retains the same name, then the Entity *is*
continuous if a continuity is at all possible.
If a new or amended Rule says that A is B, and A existed and was not B before 
the Rule or Amendment was adopted, then that Rule specifies that A becomes B.
Andre, 833:
Players are game entities.
Oerjan, 877:
If a term is used in the Rules of Agora, it refers only to the Agora entities
of that name, not to out-of-Game-entities that happen to have the same name,
unless the Rule explicitly says otherwise.

1590:
Doug, 860:
For specifying a certain Player to fulfill the duties in this Rule, it
suffices to appoint the Holder of a certain Office for such.

1591:
KoJen, 818 (upheld upon appeal):
If the Rules on a certain SLC say nothing about which Players can be under 
the Jurisdiction of its Compact, it cannot have any Players under its 
Jurisdiction
Oerjan, 836:
An SLC can never force Players outside of its Jurisdiction to come into
its Jurisdiction.
favor, 838:
Specification of a procedure to come under the Jurisdiction of an SLC (as
Rule 1539 does in the case of Contests) contains an implicite permission to
Players to use this procedure to come under the Jurisdiction, in the absence
of other permission-withholding language elsewhere in the Rules.

1596:
Wes, 1221:
A debt which is satisfied, does not cease to exist. (?)

1598:
Appeal Board, 940:
If something claims to be a Notice of Transfer, it is a Notice of Transfer,
provided it contains all necessary elements. It does not need any further
conditions on its form.
Michael, 1047:
Notices of Transfer may be made implicitly.

1664:
elJefe, 1085:
If the Speaker-Elect becomes Speaker through a Revolt, this is a normal
Speaker transition, and it is not the case that the new Speaker is
Tainted because e came to hold the Office of Speaker-Elect temporarily
after the Revolt.

1686:
Steve, 900:
If an Officer does not publish a Report, e is breaking this Rule as 
well as committing an Infraction.
Steve, 1061:
If a Player takes over an Office during a given week or month, e cannot 
commit the Infraction of Failing to Report for that week or month.
Such a player might be guilty of Tardiness for not publishing a Report 
within one week of taking over the Office. (?)
Sherlock, 1084:
It matters whether a message is sent to the Public Forum in a given
week, not whether it is actually distributed that week.

1714:
elJefe, 1059:
To allege that a player is Lawless it is necessary to explicitly state that
that player is Lawless, it is not enough to just state that that person has
more than 20 Blots.

1722:
Kolja A., 931:
Although Currencies as a group are Nomic Entities, the Currencies created
as per this Rule are not. (?)
Elde, 934:
The name of such a Currency is a Nomic Property, and thus protected by
Rule 1011.

1728:
Steve, 1239:
It is (sometimes) possible to Object at once to several 'Without Objection'
actions.

1764:
Elysion, 1124:
Sending a message to the discussion list is not a valid place to
cast votes or declare presence. (?)

1768:
Appeal Board, 1109:
The term 'published Report of an Officer' denotes (only) Official
Reports as per Rule 1686.
In a CFJ, this Rule may not be applied for the exact information the
CFJ is called about.

1770:
Michael, 1090 (upheld upon appeal):
If a proposal is distributed with a text which is not exactly the same
as that of the original proposal, neither text counts as having been
distributed.
Lee, 1189:
Distributing proposals otherwise than is described in this or other
Rules is not permitted.
Chuck, 1229:
For a Proposal to have been Distributed, the text needs to at least
have been received by the listserver, just having been sent is not
enough.

1791:
Blob, 1208 (REVERSAL of Wes, 1207):
Rule 1552 does not apply, it cannot cause the Official Document to be not
legally permissible to Ratify.

1793:
General Chaos, 940:
A message can contain an Order, but it cannot be an Order
Steve, 1094:
Any text with the properties an Order has according to this Rule, is
an Order.
Kolja A., 1097:
A single Order is not allowed to both perform an Entity to perform
some action and to refrain from one or more actions.
Taral, 1214, together with Chuck, 1215, extended by Appeal Board, 1225:
An Order may be of a conditional nature, or otherwise dependant on
circumstances, but only if these circumstances are legally available
information at the time in the context of the Game.

1796:
Steve, 1094:
Because of Rule 106, any Player is allowed to issue any Private Order
e regards appropriate, there being no Rule forbidding this.
elJefe, 1095:
Two Orders are not allowed to prevent or hinder each other's Appeal,
in that case they indirectly prevent or hinder their own.

1799:
Kolja A., 1097:
The Amendment of an Order may include changing the Entity the Order
is directed to.
If the Amendment of an Order would change it into an illegal Order, it
causes the Order to cease to be an Order instead.

1802:
Chuck, 1091:
Vacation of Orders does not reverse any effect they had before the
vacation.

1809:
Chuck, 1172 (upheld by t, 1182 and Elysion, 1191):
For a Private Order to be proper, there must be compelling reasons for
it to be valid (such as an agreement between Players) and the Order's
commands must be commensurate with such reasons.
Crito, 1247:
A Private Order is only proper if it is specifically allowed by the Rules.

1812:
Michael, 1093:
A Notice of Infraction may be issued after the non-action that allowed
it has ended.

1830:
Crito, 1199:
The CotC (if e is not the judge) is not allowed to dismiss CFJs as per
this Rule.

1868:
Oerjan, 723:
The CotC may make another assignment, for example one to a non-Player, as long
as e makes one according to this Rule as well. (?)
Blob, 1186:
Eligibility of Players is checked at the time of the selection.
Elysion, 1187:
A judge is considered to be assigned to be the Trial Judge a CFJ at the time 
the CotC announces the identity of the Trial Judge.

1891:
Xanadu, 778:
It is allowed for a Proposal to contain zero Orders.

1893:
t, 1228:
If the budget is amended, and a certain Officer's Salary is not mentioned
in the amendment, then that Salary is unchanged.






1929:
Blob, 1238:
A message indicates which Rule allows the Award or Penalty if and only
if it is clear from the message to the Scorekeepor which Rule this is.
It is not necessary that the Rule is mentioned explicitly.

1940:
Wes, 1216:
This Rule does not stop periodic compensations from sometimes not having to
be paid out in a given month.