====================================================================== FINAL JUDGEMENT OF CFJ 756 (Rule 1003/0 should be interpreted...) ====================================================================== Final Judgement: FALSE Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE Judgement of the Speaker: TRUE Clerk of the Courts: Kelly Delegate: elJefe Justiciar: Steve Speaker: Vanyel Judgement: TRUE Judge: JonRock Eligible to Judge: Andre, Blob, Coren, Dave Bowen, Chuck, Elde, elJefe, Jeffrey, JonRock, KoJen, Oerjan, Pascal, Steve, TAL, Vanyel, Vlad Caller: Swann Barred: Kelly, Michael Scorekeepor: JonRock receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement Steve receives 5 Points for instantaneous Judgement Vanyel receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement elJefe receives 5 Points for speedy Judgement JonRock must return 5 Points for being overturned Note: JonRock's Injunction is set aside. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- History: Called Fri, 24 Mar 1995 16:40:10 -0500 by Swann Assigned Sat, 25 Mar 1995 04:15 to JonRock Judged TRUE Sun, 26 Mar 1995 21:31:38 -0500 by JonRock --> JonRock receives 5 Points Appealed Sun, 26 Mar 1995 22:30:49 -0600 (CST) by Vanyel Appealed Mon, 27 Mar 95 03:01:19 EST5 by Kelly Appealed Mon, 27 Mar 1995 17:46:29 +1000 (EST) by Steve Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:20 UTC to Steve as Justiciar Assigned Mon, 27 Mar 1995 09:20 UTC to Vanyel as Speaker Judged FALSE Mon, 27 Mar 1995 18:55:43 +1000 (EST) by Steve as Justiciar --> Steve receives 5 Points Assigned Wed, 29 Mar 1995 10:30 UTC to elJefe as pro-CotC Judged TRUE Wed, 29 Mar 1995 04:03:42 -0600 (CST) by Vanyel as Speaker --> Vanyel receives 5 Points Judged FALSE Wed, 29 Mar 95 12:03:38 EST by elJefe --> elJefe receives 5 Points --> JonRock loses 5 Points ====================================================================== Statement: "Rule 1003/0 should be interpreted to disallow Proposals that create Rules that include, or amend Rules to include, sanctions that penalize players for the way they vote on the Proposal adopting the Rule change in question." Relevant Rules: 1003/0 Injunction: If Judged TRUE, Rule 1003/0 should be annotated as allowed by Rule 789/1. I bar Kelly and Michael from Judging this statement. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Arguments: Kelly has made an argument that in the situation I've stated, it is the *Rule* not the *Proposal* that is doing the coercion. I maintain, as does Michael, that the threat of force-- say proposing a rule with the clause, "All Players who did not vote For this rule immediately lose 100 Points upon its adoption."-- is in itself coercive, even if it is the Rule itself that is doing the penalizing. In the example above, even though it is the Rule that takes the 100 Points from the Player, I maintain that it is the "obvious and direct intent" of including such a clause in a proposal to "coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience." Note, it says "a" Player not "all" Players. If *any* Player is changing eir vote based on such a clause, e is being coerced. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- References: 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*) ====================================================================== Judgement: TRUE It is clear to me that the obvious and direct intent of any Proposal is to allow the occurrence of any actions and game moves which would occur according to the Rules during the voting period of that Proposal, and upon the adoption of that Proposal, by satisfying a major requirement for such actions and game moves to occur. Thus, that obvious and direct intent is both a promise and a threat that such actions and game moves WILL occur, after the remaining requirements have been satisfied (i.e., publication and/or adoption). If a Proposal would create a Rule(s), or amend a Rule(s), to cause immediate penalties to individual players based on their voting on that Proposal, then the obvious and direct intent of the Proposal does include the threat to recognize those penalties, in addition to the Proposal's other effects. This threat to penalize based on voting is coercion to vote against conscience. The above reasoning is sufficient to rule on the statement of the CFJ, but other points are noteworthy: o Kelly's argument fails in that the Rule is not doing the coercing; the Rule is doing the actual penalizing. The Proposal, carrying the implicit threat to penalize, is what is coercive. o The threatened penalty may include, but is not limited to, (a) unconsented loss of any Currency or Points, whether or not remuneration in another form is provided for by the same Proposal, or (b) unconsented loss of any ability to perform actions within the game, including loss of any ability to submit Proposals and loss of any freedom of vote choice on any future Proposal. (The utility of any of these possessions and rights, to the Player possessing them, cannot be judged by anyone else and must be regarded as maximal. In addition, Rule 783/0 also prohibits some of these penalties.) o Coercion to vote against conscience is NOT present if the penalty imposed by the adoption of a Proposal (i.e., threatened by the Proposal itself) is not based on the vote of the Player to be penalized. In this case, the Player clearly does have the freedom to vote with eir conscience (i.e., AGAINST the Proposal to impose the penalty). o Coercion to vote against conscience is still present if the Rule imposing the penalty based on voting is not the Rule created or amended by the Proposal, as it is still an unconsented penalty threatened by the Proposal and recognized upon adoption of the Proposal. This is in contrast to Rule 783/0, which only disallows changes based on clauses in the Proposal itself. o Coercion to vote against conscience is still present if a penalty based on a Player's voting would occur even if the Proposal does not pass. This penalty would obviously have to be imposed by another Rule already adopted, but it is the submission of the Proposal to which that Rule would apply that is the threat to make the penalty occur. Thus, a Rule stating "Any Player voting AGAINST Player X's next Proposal loses 10 Points" will have the paradoxical effect of not allowing Player X to make any more Proposals, since all of eir submissions are illegal under 1003/0. It is only by desperate appeal to Game Custom that this Rule allows any Proposal submissions at all, since the presence of the F-A reward/penalty in 833/0 can be considered coercive of the vote of the Player who submits any Proposal! --------------------------------------------------------------------- Rule 783/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Illegality of Bonus Clauses Proposals which contain clauses awarding, trading, penalizing, or otherwise changing the account of any Nomic Entity's holding of Points or any other form of Currency based on the Vote they cast on that Proposal are invalid, shall not be deemed to have been properly submitted, and shall not be Voted upon. Rule 833/0 (Mutable, MI=1) Reward or Penalty for Proposing When the voting period for a proposal is over, the proposer gets F-A points, where F is the number of votes FOR, and A is the number of votes AGAINST. However, only the Votes of Voters shall be counted for this determination. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Injunction: The Rulekeepor is enjoined to annotate Rule 1003/0 with the statement of this CFJ, the list of relevant Rules including only 1003/0 itself. (Rules 783/0 and 833/0 are included in the Judgement for reference purposes only.) ====================================================================== Judgement of the Justiciar: FALSE I overturn JonRock's Judgement and find the Statement to be FALSE. Rule 1003 prohibits the making of proposals whose obvious and direct intent is to coerce a Player into voting against eir conscience. In effect, JonRock was asked to judge whether a proposal which penalizes (or rewards) Players on the basis of how they vote on it counts as coercive in the sense of Rule 1003. However, he chooses in his Judgement to concentrate on the issue of whether it is the Proposal or the Rule that the Proposal creates (ab initio or by amendment) that does the coercion. He ignores what seems to me to be the more fundamental issue - in the sense that the truth of the CFJ can be determined with respect to this issue alone without the complications considered by JonRock - which is whether the threat of penalty alone is sufficient to establish the existence of coercion, or whether, in order to clearly establish the presence of coercion, it is necessary to further consider the precise nature of the threat being made. In his Judgement, JonRock assumes without argument that the mere existence of the threat of penalty implies coercion. In my judgement, this is a mistake. Coercion is the use of force to compel action. Of course, drawing the line beyond which the pressure brought to bear on an agent is considered to be coercive is a somewhat vague and arbitrary matter, but we can nevertheless distinguish cases which definitely fall on either side of that line. "Give me all your money or I'll kill you" clearly is coercive; "Give me all your money or I'll pinch you" clearly is not, no matter how unpleasant the pinching. Clearly, in order to determine whether a threat of penalty is coercive or not, it is necessary to inquire into the exact nature and severity of the threatened penalty. So it is not true that Rule 1003 simply prohibits the making of Proposals which threaten to penalize Players on the basis of how they vote on it. While it may prohibit *some* such Proposals, it will allow others. Hence I Judge that the Statement is FALSE. ====================================================================== Judgement of the Speaker: TRUE Reasoning: I first look at the definition of "coerce": coerce vb 1: REPRESS 2: COMPEL 3: ENFORCE Hmm, not very helpful. Next, I check repress vb 1: curb, subdue 2: restrain, suppress compel vb to drive or urge with force enforce vb 1: COMPEL (~ obedience by threats) 2: to execute with vigour (~ the law) Aha, these are more helpful. First, if "coerce" is meant in the sense of "repress", a Proposal is coercive if only it curbs or restrains certain Voting patterns; for example, giving rewards to Vote otherwise. If "coerce" is meant in its second sense, a Proposal is coercive if it uses some sort of force to "drive or urge" a Player to Vote one way over another. The way "coerce" is used, its third meaning makes no sense, as Proposals cannot "execute with vigour" much of anything at all. Then, taking the other meanings and applying them to the situation at hand: we have a Proposal, which is to Amend a Rule, and because of something within that Proposal, some subset of Players may be penalized, based on their Vote. Clearly, then, that Proposal is urging those Players to Vote in a certain way, using the force of the implied threat of the Proposal actually passing. It is subduing those who might Vote another way into Voting a certain way. . . clearly, this is coercion. Therefore, I Judge TRUE. Vanyel ====================================================================== Judgement of the pro-Clerk of the Courts: FALSE Justice Steve puts his finger on the essential flaw in the Statement, which would cancel any Proposal which might act against those voting in a particular way, no matter how indirectly or slightly. Judge JonRock was correct to identify "coerce" as the threat of a penalty, as opposed to the penalty itself. However, coercion must also include a real and identifiable threat. Otherwise Proposal 1042 could be considered as in violation of this Rule, since it placed players not voting on it in the position of having to perform some other action within two weeks, or be deregistered. The fact that probably no-one's conscience would prevent them from voting, or that the required action is trivial to perform, would not prevent the Statement of the CFJ from cancelling Proposal 1042. This is not to say that it is easy to draw the line between encouragement and coercion. But clearly there is a distinction. I do not know which side of the line Proposal 1535 (for example) falls on; but I have no hesitation in declaring the blanket prohibition in the Statement to be FALSE. - Justice elJefe ====================================================================== -- kelly martin <firstname.lastname@example.org> I have been told that when a large group of people believe in a fantasy, it is called a culture. When a small group believes, it is called a cult. When two people believe in a fantasy, it is called love; and when one person believes, it is called psychosis.