Subject: DRJPROP10

From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} <djacobs@n...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 01:25:42 -0500

PROPOSAL FOR DEBATE DRJPROP10

PREAMBLE:

RE:

Assigned Case ID: CFJ001

Plaintiff: Jen

Judge: Chuck

Verdict Due Date: February 20th, 2001.

excellent points Jen.... this is part of what we are trying to achieve
with the proposal itself, is to get input on it before it is submitted
and we have to overhaul it later.... therefore the following prop is up
for debate:

DRJPROP10

Support your local lobbyist Ver 2.0

The following amendments will be made to rule
332:(<bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>ADDITIONS IN
BLUE</color></bold>,
<italic><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>DELETIONS IN
RED</color></italic>)

Any proposal submitted directly to the speaker for voting (including
those of submitted by the speaker) under rule 204 must be accompanied by
at least two (2) letters of support written by
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>lobbyists, defined
as</color></bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param> </color>separate
players <bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>(including the
speaker)</color></bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param> </color>other
than the author, to qualify for voting.
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>These letters must forwarded in
their entirety to the speaker by the author at the same time the text of
the proposal is submitted. The e-mail headers of support letters must be
maintained as it is passed from the lobbyist, to the author, and finally
to the speaker, to ensure that the comments were made from lobbyists and
not merely by the author. The support letter must also contain the final
text of the proposal as it was submitted by the
author.</color></bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param> </color>Any
proposals not meeting these conditions will be rejected by the speaker.
<italic><color><param>ffff,0000,0000</param>[STRIKE: These letters of
support must be submitted to the speaker in the same manner as a proposal
would be.]</color></italic> <color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>
</color>This support must be gained through direct
<bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>e-mail</color></bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>
</color>communication with other players. The on_discussion mailing listmay not be used to lobby for support of a proposal that will be submitteddirectly to the speaker for voting. <bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>When posting the proposal to theweb pages for voting, the speaker shall include with the proposal theinitials of any and all players (lobbyists) whose letters were submitted insupport of said proposal. Upon posting of the proposal, it is theresponsibility of each respective lobbyist to review the text of theproposal to be sure it is identical to that which they approved. Anyvariation from the text approved by a lobbyist and the posted proposalshall be grounds for a call for judgement under rules 213-217, and thespeaker shall in a timely fashion provide to the judge in any such case,any and all support letters submitted to the speaker regarding the proposalin question.</color></bold><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param></color>Players submitting letters of support on the behalf of the authorof a proposal are in no way obligated to vote in favor of that proposal.Any proposal submitted to all members of the on_discussion mailing list fordebate before submission to the speaker for voting under rule 303 is exemptfrom this rule. Any proposals rejected by the speaker for not meeting theconditions of this rule may be resubmitted in their original text underrule 303.

.

/ \

| |

|.|

|.|

|:| __

,_|:|_, / )

(Oo / _I_

+\ \ || __|

\ \||___|

\ /.:.\-\

|.:. /-----\

|___|::oOo::|

/ |:<<_T_>:|

|_____\ ::: /

| | \ \:/

| | | |

\ / | \___

/ | \_____\

`-'

-Devon Jacobs-

-Grand Silly Kniggit-

---

From: "Windrant" <windrant@n...>
Date: Wed, 14 Feb 2001 06:23:11 -0500

charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ok Devon.... better but still not quite there.
When posting the proposal to the web pages for voting, the speaker shall
include with the proposal the initials of any and all players (lobbyists)
whose letters were submitted in support of said proposal.

Ok that is no problem and I can see the point.

Upon posting of the proposal, it is the responsibility of each respective
lobbyist to review the text of the proposal to be sure it is identical to
that which they approved. Any variation from the text approved by a lobbyist
and the posted proposal shall be grounds for a call for judgement under
rules 213-217, and the speaker shall in a timely fashion provide to the
judge in any such case, any and all support letters submitted to the speaker
regarding the proposal in question.

Why does the proposal have to be the same? What if the proponent actually
took the suggestions of the lobbyist and made changes? If the lobyist
signed off on it with suggested changes then the prop would be different.
Besides I think it would be fun to have lobbyists be surprisedby what
actually goes up versus what they approved. The orignial intention behind
this prop I think was to create a communication between players in the
creation process. The lobbyists aren't "approving" the proposal as much as
working with the proponent to help their chances of winning. It also could
add a bit of bartering to the process. "I'm not going to sign off on this
until I see a paragraph about..." If the proponent didn't like the idea for
that paragraph he could just go elsewhere. The chances that the second
lobbyist would like the prop could be decreased... I just think that we
don't need to be so tight about it, that's all.

BTW if you read the rules in 231-217 carefully, the Speaker only judges the
first case.... beyond that it determined by a randomly assigned judge. I'm
not sure that CFJ is the best way to solve "disputes" over wording on props.

Chuck Henry
Speaker and Historian of Our Nomic
The Holder of the Holy Hand Grenade of Antioch
www.northnet.org/windrant/OurNomic

---

From: Devon Jacobs {Darkstar} <djacobs@n...>
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:42:35 -0500

in my demented mind there's always a reason.....

in this case it's AFTER the quoted text...

At 06:23 AM 2/14/01 -0500, Chuck wrote: 

<bold>Upon posting of the proposal, it is the responsibility of each
respective lobbyist to review the text of the proposal to be sure it is
identical to that which they approved. Any variation from the text
approved by a lobbyist and the posted proposal shall be grounds for a
call for judgement under rules 213-217, and the speaker shall in a timely
fashion provide to the judge in any such case, any and all support
letters submitted to the speaker regarding the proposal in
question.</bold> 

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>Why
does the proposal have to be the same? What if the proponent actually
took the suggestions of the lobbyist and made changes? If the lobyist
signed off on it with suggested changes then the prop would be different.
Besides I think it would be fun to have lobbyists be surprisedby what
actually goes up versus what they approved. The orignial intention
behind this prop I think was to create a communication between players in
the creation process. The lobbyists aren't "approving" the proposal as
much as working with the proponent to help their chances of winning. It
also could add a bit of bartering to the process. "I'm not going to sign
off on this until I see a paragraph about..." If the proponent didn't
like the idea for that paragraph he could just go elsewhere. The chances
that the second lobbyist would like the prop could be decreased... I
just think that we don't need to be so tight about it, that's all.

</color></fontfamily>  

<fontfamily><param>Arial</param><color><param>0000,0000,ffff</param>BTW
if you read the rules in 231-217 carefully, the Speaker only judges the
first case.... beyond that it determined by a randomly assigned judge. 
I'm not sure that CFJ is the best way to solve "disputes" over wording on
props. 

</color></fontfamily>  

Chuck Henry

Well initially I put that in as sort of a CYA clause. notice it says that
variations are <italic>grounds</italic> for a CFJ, it doesn't say that it
invokes one. with our bunch here, most of the time we're not going to
care if minor changes have been made since you sent your support, it was
just in case we get more people and they start having a fit, saying
'hey... that's not what I was supporting! I never woulda supported
something that did that'. it would give them a channel of action. and
the reason I chose CFJ to handle it is BECAUSE the judge is randomly
assigned. that way a)the speaker isn't burdened with yet another job, and
b) it should keep bias to a minimum. (though if I keep that section I'll
rewrite it to exclude the author and lobbyists from the judge
pick....oops!)

.

/ \

| |

|.|

|.|

|:| __

,_|:|_, / )

(Oo / _I_

+\ \ || __|

\ \||___|

\ /.:.\-\

|.:. /-----\

|___|::oOo::|

/ |:<<_T_>:|

|_____\ ::: /

| | \ \:/

| | | |

\ / | \___

/ | \_____\

`-'

-Devon Jacobs-

-Grand Silly Kniggit-