Assigned Case ID Plaintiff Judge Verdict Date
CFJ001 Jen Chuck February 17th, 2001

Assigned Case ID: CFJ001
Plaintiff: Jen
Judge: Chuck
Verdict Date: February 17th, 2001.

Verdict: TRUE

Comments from Judge: Devon's proposal was a good one and I agreed with its' spirit (as I understood it to be) but the actual execution was poor. This Thesis gives us a guideline for how to submit proposals until amendments are made 322. While rule 303 is an effective way to avoid the entire issue; it is slow. We have things to do!

Comments from Speaker: The Speaker's office will accept proposals written and submitted in the fashion suggested by CJF001.

Text of Call for Judgement:I strongly believe that there should be a hiatus in submitting and voting on proposals until there is a greater level of clarity provided regarding Rule 332 "Support your local lobbyist." I feel that without further clarity there will be a wide variation in how proposals are submitted, and that players may get their proposals rejected due to misunderstanding of the ruleset.

First and foremost, the rule does not CLEARLY state how proposals and letters of support from other players are to be submitted to the Speaker.

Rule 332 states that 2 letters of support must ACCOMPANY a proposal sent to a speaker. However, further along in the rule it is stated that "These letters of support must be submitted to the speaker in the same manner as a proposal would be."

It becomes unclear whether a player is to send a COMPLETE package containing the proposal itself and the 2 letters DIRECTLY to the speaker. This would require the player submitting the proposal to either pass their proposal around and have people attach their supportive comments (in which case after two series of supportive comments the proposal would be forwarded to the author who would then forward it on to the Speaker), or devise another method of ensuring that the Speaker received both letters and proposal together.

If the letters of support are to be sent to the Speaker DIRECTLY FROM THE LOBBYIST the author of the proposal has no way of knowing if they have achieved the support of two other players, nor are they able to view the comments made by other players to improve their proposal before submission. It is not stated in Rule 332 whether the author retains the right to read the comments made by other players targeted to lobby a proposal. It is feasible that the Speaker could receive a negative letter from a targeted lobbyist.

Lastly, it also is not stated in Rule 332 whether the Speaker is allowed to be a lobbyist. The Speaker has no voting rights, yet is not omitted from commenting and agreeing with a proposal. Can we target the Speaker for lobbying?

It is my interpretation that presently we should forward our new proposals to other players in an effort to gain support. To do this we should send our proposal via email to other players and have the other players make their comments directly in the same email containing the proposal. The header of the email must be maintained as it is passed to each player to ensure to the speaker that the comments were made from lobbyists and not merely by the author. After lobbyists have approved the proposal and made any comments they will return the email to the original author who in turn will have the opportunity to read the comments and apply any suggestions to the proposal. The author in turn will forward the completed proposal to the Speaker, once again with the headers retained. Since it is not stated in Rule 332 it is interpreted that the Speaker can serve as a lobbyist. It is also interpreted that we as authors retain our right to view all comments and criticism regarding proposals.




Chuck Henry / Windrant © 2000