Call for Judgement from Jim Shea: (Wed 21 Jul 1993 2:12 GMT) "If a proposal purports to reward or penalize voters based on the votes they cast on that proposal, or based on any other action taken / not taken by any player prior to the end of the voting period on that proposal, then that proposal will, if passed, be in conflict with rule 108." I find this statement to be FALSE. -------------------- Justification: It is clear that this hinges on our interpretation of rule 108. Rule 108 consists of two sentences, the first of which is that : No rule change may take effect earlier than the moment of the completion of the vote that adopted it, even if its wording explicitly states otherwise. This is clearly not relevant to the case at hand because the issue is not whether the rule is taking effect, but whether it is allowed to reward or penalize voters on the basis of their past actions. The second sentence is that: No rule change may have retroactive application. It is here that we shall have to determine the truth or falsehood of the statement in question. The important issue is whether penalising or rewarding someone based on their past behaviour is 'retroactive application' of a rule. It is central to this argument that this is not the case. Retroactive application is, in our view, the application of a rule to a previous state of the game so as to influence the course of the game at that point. If this is so, then clearly using a proposal to alter a Voter's score on the basis of how they have voted in the past is not retroactive application. One may examine the past state of the game in order to determine the application of a rule in the present moment, but one may not attempt to apply a rule 'in the past'.