==============================  CFJ 1354  ==============================

    Insane proposals, if adopted, have no effect.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 teucer

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by teucer:                       26 Apr 2002 23:39:22 GMT
Assigned to root:                       04 May 2002 23:19:37 GMT
Judged FALSE by root:                   06 May 2002 01:16:08 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1279 reads, in part, "And should such a Proposal's Voting Period
begin, / but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win." Since rule
1003 reads, "Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a
Player into voting against eir conscience shall not take effect even if
adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding." All insane proposals
require that someone vote for them, so that the Proposer does not Win.
However, such proposals may be immensely unpopular, thereby coercing
players into voting against their conscience just to stop the proposer's
victory.

========================================================================

Judge root's Arguments:

The Caller argues that all Insane proposals coerce someone to vote FOR them
to prevent the proposer from winning, and so they have no effect by Rule
1003/2.

CFJ 756 addresses a similar issue.  In their judgements, Justice Steve and
Justice elJefe determined that the mere presence of a threat of penalty in a
proposal was insufficient to invoke Rule 1003/0; the penalty must be great
enough to realistically be considered "coercive".  Judge JonRock and Justice
Vanyel did not address the matter at hand in their arguments.

Rule 1003/2 differs in application from Rule 1003/0, but the significant
differences merely address how coercive Proposal are to be treated.  The
defining phrase, "Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a
Player into voting against eir conscience", remains intact, and so I find
that the arguments applied in CFJ 756 remain valid.

Now, on to the alleged coerciveness of Insane proposals.  Individual
proposals may vary, but all Insane proposals, as stated by the Caller,
encourage Players to vote FOR them to prevent the proposer from winning.
Winning has two significant effects:  1) the winner is granted a Patent
Title, and 2) the winner is awarded the Winner's Stipend for a limited
period of up to four months.  At present, the Winner's Stipend is 25 Stems
a month, for a maximum total of 100 Stems.

I do not find that the possibility of awarding one Player a Patent Title and
100 Stems is a sufficient "punishment" alone to coerce anyone into voting FOR
the Proposal.  Therefore, I find that the Statement is FALSE.

========================================================================

Judge root's Evidence:

Rule 1003/2 (Power=2)
No Coercive Proposals

      Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player
      into voting against eir conscience shall not take effect even if
      adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.

Rule 1003/0 (Mutable, MI=1)
No Coercive Proposals

       Proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player
       into voting against eir conscience are disallowed.  Such a
       proposal is considered not to be "proposed in the proper way".

       This Rule takes precedence over other Rules which would
       otherwise allow such a shameful Proposal to be voted on.
       (*Was: 822*)

CFJ 756 (available from recent agora-discussion archives)

Rule 1729/4 (Power=1)
Insanity

      An Interested Proposal is Insane, if it contains no minuscule
         letter.
      (That is the opposite of CAPITAL, for those who know not
         better.)

      For such a Proposal, until the Voting Period has ended:
      there shall be no discussing Votes, or this Rule has been
         bended.
      Nor shall a Player Vote in public, only to Assessor.
      The Votes shall be unknown to others, even employer and
         professor.

      And should a Player split eir votes 'tween FOR and
          AGAINST like crazy,
      E will annoy Assessors (who are known for being lazy)
      So should eir votes cast differ from each other, this Rule's
          broke,
      With the breaker being the voting Player, as sure as if e'd
          spoke.

      And should such a Proposal's Voting Period begin,
      but no one Votes FOR it, the Proposer shall Win.

Rule 1931/2 (Power=1)
Winners' Stipend

      When a Win occurs, all persons Bearing the Patent Title of
      Current Champion shall have that Patent Title revoked but shall
      have the Patent Title of Champion awarded to them instead.
      Immediately afterwards, whichever Player Won the Game (or
      Players, should multiple  Players have Won the Game
      simultaneously) shall be awarded the Patent Title of Current
      Champion.

      At the beginning of each month, the Payroll Clerk shall pay
      out the Winner's Stipend to each Player that has Borne the
      Patent Title Current Champion for a total of at least 12
      days in the preceding month.

Treasuror's Budget (available from recent agora-official archives)

========================================================================