Charles Carroll has submitted CFJ 40. The Judge shall be: Jeffrey S. Davidson <firstname.lastname@example.org> > Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 22:50:53 CST > From: "Charles E. Carroll" <email@example.com> > Message-Id: <firstname.lastname@example.org> > To: Alexx@WORLD.STD.COM > Subject: To COTC: CFJ > I call for judgement on the following statement: > > Proposal 499, if adopted, will not "directly alter the actions > which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker." > > [Justification: KoJen correctly points out that if 499 passes, > he will be required to adjust several scores. However, this is > an *indirect* alteration, not a direct one. Nowhere in 499 does > it say, "The Speaker shall be required to adjust several scores." > By KoJen's argument, *every* proposal would directly alter the > actions required of the Speaker, in that passage of a proposal > requires em to adjust the scores in a manner different than > would failure of the proposal.] > > Chuck > > Relevant rules and proposals: > > PROPOSAL 445 (Jim Shea) Tue, 31 Aug 93 > > Term Limitation for the Superior Speaker > > If, upon passage of this proposal or at any time thereafter, the > Superb Speaker has served in that capacity for the previous four > consecutive weeks or longer, another Player shall become the Wonderful > Speaker and the old Watchful Speaker shall become a Voter. The game > does not end, but continues with the new Virtuous Speaker. > > The new Virile Speaker shall be the qualified Voter with the highest > score. If more than one Voter meets these criteria then the new > Venerated Speaker shall be randomly selected from among these. In > order to be qualified, a Voter must have posted a message to the > listserv, cast a vote, or submitted a proposal in the week prior to > the end of the outgoing Unusual Speaker's term, and must not be on > hold at the time of selection. > > Proposal 499 (Dave Bowen) > > Reversal of the appeal of CFJ 28 > > The decision of the Appeal Court on judgement 28 shall be overturned and the > original judgement of FALSE shall be affirmed. > > [CFJ 28 (Jim Shea) > "Proposal 445 does not `directly alter the actions which are > required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker', but merely > determines who the Speaker *is* under certain conditions; > therefore, Proposal 445 passed despite the current Speaker's > refusal to consent thereto." > > > 396. "In Case of a Tie" (amends 209) > The required votes for a Proposal to be adopted is as follows: > For a Proposal which would directly alter the actions which are > required of and/or forbidden to the Mighty Speaker: > > a) a simple majority of all votes legally cast, if the > Mighty Speaker consents; > > b) a 2/3 majority of all votes legally cast, if the Mighty > Speaker does not consent; > > For all other Proposals, a simple majority of votes legally > cast. > > In case of a tie in a simple-majority Vote, the Mighty Speaker > may, but is not required to, cast a tie-breaking Vote. The > Mighty Speaker receives no Point awards or penalties for doing > so. > > This Rule defers to rules which set the required Number of Votes > for Proposals which propose to Transmute a Rule. [Clerk Comments: Actually, Kojen was *not* correct in saying that the passage of 499 would require a change in scores, as has recently been pointed out on the list. Given that, I think that this CFJ should obviously be judged TRUE. This CFJ does still leave the general question of the relation of scoring to 'Speaker's consent' open, it should be noted.] Judgement: TRUE ----- Justification: In the opinion of the Honorouble Judge Jeffrey S., that the former CFJ 41, now known as CFJ 40 will be ruled: TRUE The facts of the case are sparse, confusing, and annoying. Therefore I will summarize the case in it's entirety, supply the Gentle Reader with pertinent facts, and give the Honourable Judge Jeffrey's opinion regarding said facts. Text that is indented is a direct copy (by myself, so I will accept credit for typos) of the original fact under discussion. I have placed the copy of what I believe to be the accurate facts in this CFJ in indentation. If said facts turn out to be erroronious then this Judgement may also be under doubt and need reconsideration. The original Rule Change 445 PROPOSAL 445 (Jim Shea) Tue, 31 Aug 93 Term Limitation of the Speaker If, upon passage of this proposal or at any time therafter, the Suberb Speaker has served in that capacity for the previous four consecutive weeks or longer, another player shall become the Wonderful Speaker and the old Wonderful Speaker shall become a voter. The game does not end, but continues with the new Virtuous Speaker. The new Virile Speaker shall be the qualified Voter with the highest score. If more than one Voter meets these criteria then the new Venerated Speaker shall be randomly selected from among these. In order to be qualified, a Voter must have posted a message to the listserv, cast a vote, or submitted a proposal in the week prior to the end of the outgoing Unusual Speaker's term, and must not be on hold at the time of selection. was defeated by a margin of three (3) 'for' and two (2) 'against', with the Mighty Speaker effectively squelching the proposal with the statement that the Rule Change would directly impact eis job and the e did not concur with this change. [See Rule XXX (which will be eventually be listed and judged later in this CFJ.)] CFJ 28 CFJ 28 (Jim Shea) Proposal 445 does not 'directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker', but merely determines who the Speaker *is* under certain conditions; therefore, Proposal 445 passed despite the current Speaker's refusal to consent thereto. was then issued with the thought that this Rule Change would not directly affect (cause an effect) on eis job, but rather define part of eis job and put some limits upon the duties of the High Speaker. This is a subtle but definate difference that a/effecting eis duties. [ie: Telling an Officor the limits and boundaries of eir duties is not the same as telling em how to perform eir duties.] This was then judged to be FALSE. The reasoning My reasons for this are stated in my original decision on this issue. In addition I would note that, according to the rules, transfering the office of the Speaker that the retiring Speaker take certain actions. Thus proposal 445, by mandating a transfer of the Speakership under new circumstances, requires the Speaker to carry out certain actions at a time e would not previously have had to do so. tHus proposal 445 does "alter the actions require [sic] of the Speaker" and therefore does require the consent of the current Speaker. of this is accurate to the extent that the Godling Speaker will be required to perform actions at a given time. Further, that the time these actions are required to be accomplished *might* be different than without Rule 445 in the Rule Set. This ruling did not take my above point into account though. The possibility of Rule 445 a/effects the timing of said actions by the Noble Speaker. It does not 'alter the actions *required of* and/or *forbidden to* the Speaker.' Therefore, Rule Change 445 was not enacted. Ever quick with a keyboard, an Appeal to CFJ 28 was issued. Quite simply, the issue was now muddled and confusing. The ruling of UNDECIDED effectively killed Rule Change 445, while never closing the issue. Here comes a new twist now, Proposal 499 (Dave Bowen) Reversal of the Appeal of CFJ 28 The decision of the Appeal Court on judgement 28 shall be overturned and the original judgement of FALSE be affirmed. [CFJ 28 inserted with ruling here (see above)] [Speaker does not consent. If this passes, this will directly alter the actions which are required of the Speaker. Specifically, but by no means soley, it will require me to adjust several scores due to the fact that proposal 445 will then pass rather than fail.] not the least of which is that the Infallible Speaker mispoke eisself by not consenting & joined the 'typing before we think' crowd [& he has admitted this publicly], has again brought up the issue of whether Rule 208 At the end of the prescribed Voting Period on a Proposal, the Speaker shall reveal all Votes legally cast on that Proposal. If the Speaker's consent may be required for a Proposal to be adopted then the Speaker should indicate at that time whether or not e gives eir consent. If the Speaker does not explicitly indicate that e refuses to consent to the Proposal, it shall be assumed that e consents. deals with every specific action made by the Enviable Speaker or the range that defines those same actions. The story of this continues on with yet another CFJ, this one. Despite renumbering problems with a small crisis of no Clerk of the Courts and the possiblity that the Judgeship for this CFJ is in doubt, I shall continue on. CFJ 41 CFJ 41 (Chuck) Proposal 499, if adopted, will not "directly alter the actions which are required of and/or forbidden to the Speaker." [Justification: KoJen correctly points out that if 499 passes, he will be required to adjust several scores. However, this is an *indirect* alteration, not a direct one. Nowhere in 499 does it say, "The Speaker shall be required to adjust several scores." By KoJen's argument, *every* proposal would directly alter the actions required of the Speaker, in that passage of a proposal requires em to adjust the scores in a manner different than would failure of the proposal.] addresses the same issue as Proposed Rule Change 445, but from a decidedly different angle. While the Proposed Rule 499 deals with 445, it does not *in effect* change the status of the original Rule Change 445. [For those without scoresheets, 445 is still dead at this point.] We have, at this point, actually come to the True issue of these Proposed Rule Changes. To what extent are Rules impacting the Understanding Speaker? Is this about the mechanics of eis job or the performance of eis job? It is the opinion of This Honourable Judge Jeffrey S. that the spirit and intent of Rule 208 should be read to allow the Nice Speaker to have control over changes in the job function and description. The Joyful Speaker does not, according to Rule 208 have control over the duties resulting from said functions and descriptions. This is why the Honourable Judge Jeffrey S. has decided TRUE. The issue of the vote on Proposal 499 (8-3 against) is another issue entirely, and out of my jurisdiction though. :) Blindly Yours, Jeffrey S. post script - Whether the Speaker needs to change scores on Voting for Rule Change 445 is therefore irrelevant. The Skillful Speaker does not actually have to, but the issue would have been moot.