Charles Carroll has submitted CFJ 40.  The Judge shall be:
Jeffrey S. Davidson <jsd@ecn.purdue.edu>

> Date: Wed, 22 Sep 93 22:50:53 CST  
> From: "Charles E. Carroll" <ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
> Message-Id: <82255.ccarroll@students.wisc.edu>
> 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.