==============================  CFJ 1554  ==============================

    At least one proposal containing a rule change, that was submitted
    after Rule 1561 was created, has taken effect.

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

Caller:                                 Quazie

Judge:                                  root
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by Quazie:                       18 Apr 2005 04:34:03 GMT
Assigned to root:                       18 Apr 2005 08:37:12 GMT
Judged TRUE by root:                    25 Apr 2005 04:45:34 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 1561 states that if a proposal offers a bribe to other players it
shall not take effect.  I argue that a rule change is proposed to
either improve the game for all players or at the very least for the
player submitting the proposal.  Thus any proposal with a rule change
in it is bribing either all players to vote for it to improve whatever
aspect of the game the rule change attempts to change, or at the very
least is bribing the proposer emself to vote FOR the proposal.  The
basic premiss of proposing a proposal with a rule change is to
persuade other players to vote FOR your proposed rule change.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Webster defines bribe as the following:  Something serving to
influence or persuade.

Rule 754/5 (Power=3)
Freedom of Communication

     Freedom of speech being essential for the healthy functioning of
     any non-Imperial nomic, it is hereby resolved:

     (1) No Player shall be prohibited from participating in the
         Fora.

     (2) No Player shall be punished for accurately quoting a Rule,
         Proposal, Statement, Judgement, another Player, or another
         reference.

     Regularity of communication being essential for the healthy
     function of any nomic, it is hereby resolved:

     (3) A difference in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the use of
         a synonym or abbreviation in place of a word or phrase, is
         inconsequential in all forms of communication, as long as
         the difference does not create an ambiguity in meaning.

     (4) A term explicitly defined by the Rules shall be interpreted
         as having that meaning, as shall its ordinary-language
         synonyms not explicitly defined by the rules.  In
         particular, the term "number" shall be interpreted as "real
         number".

     (5) Any term primarily used in mathematical or legal contexts,
         and not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule, shall
         be interpreted as having the meaning it has in those
         contexts.

     (6) Any term not addressed by previous provisions of this Rule
         shall be interpreted as having its ordinary-language
         meaning.

     This rule takes precedence over any other rules which dictate
     terminology or grammar.

Rule 1561/1 (Power=2)
Illegality of Bonus Clauses

     Any Proposal which offers a bribe to a Player or Players to
     vote either FOR or AGAINST a Proposal (either itself or another
     Proposal) shall be completely without effect, even if it is
     adopted, any Rule to the contrary notwithstanding.

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

Judge root's Arguments:

At the core of this case is the question of what constitutes a bribe.
The rules do not present us with any definition of the term, but the
caller maintains that the definition "Something serving to influence
or persuade" should be used.  I do not agree that this definition is
appropriate or even common place, but I will grant that R1561 provides
sufficient wiggle room as to be unclear.  Since the rules are unclear,
I find game custom, the application of a more generic, commonsense
definition of "bribe" (such as those listed *first* in various
dictionaries), and the best interests of the game all support the
finding that a proposed rule change is not inherently bribery, and I
therefore return a judgement of TRUE.

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