spoon-business: The most-revised proposal ever: 236 again

["Jonathan Van Matre" <JVanMatre@xxxxxxxx>]

OK, let's try this.

Revision of 236 (again)

{{
_My Gavel, Extricated From Your Ass After Complex Reconstructive
Surgery_

Replace the entirety of rule 155 with the following (compiled and
cobbled together from research into a handful of handily-archived dead
Nomic games, to which I am gratefully indebted):

{{
_No Kickbacks_

I. Legislative Kickbacks

A proposal is invalid if it calls for one or more effects that
discriminate in any way between players based on their voting actions on
that proposal, or any other specific proposal or proposals identified in
the proposal.  

If a proposal, by adding, changing, or repealing rules, will generate
effects which are based on the way players vote on that proposal, or any
other specific proposal or proposals identified in the proposal, then
those rules generate no effects based on the way players vote on that
particular proposal.

II. Judicial Kickbacks

A CFJ is invalid if it calls for one or more effects that discriminate
in any way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of
that CFJ, or of any other specific CFJ.

At the time of the passage of this proposal, any CFJ judged in the past
10 ndays that called for one or more effects that discriminate in any
way between players based on their judgement or non-judgement of that
CFJ, or any other specific CFJ or proposal identified in the CFJ, shall
have its ruling summarily changed to "Refused".  This paragraph will
then delete itself from this rule.

III.  Cleanup

After the enactment of all proposals passed in the nweek in which this
proposal was adopted, the following sequence of events will occur, in
numerical order:

1.  If an entity called "Bob the Voting Fish" exists, and the only rule
in the current ruleset that refers to "Bob the Voting Fish" is this one,
uncreate the entity called "Bob the Voting Fish".

2.  Section III. will delete itself from this rule.
}}

Then modify Rule 128/2, replacing the text 
{{A Judge's decision shall have the force of law.}} 
 
with the following text: 
 
{{ 
All rulings are final (except where revision is explicitly permitted by
the rules).
 
Calls For Judgement are intended to guide interpretation of the ruleset.
All judgements must be in accordance with the rules in effect at the
time of judgement.   Where the interpretation of the rules is unclear,
or the rules are silent or inconsistent concerning the issue being
judged, judges may consider judicial precedent, prior game custom,
common sense, the spirit of the game, and the best interests of the
game.
 
CFJ Statements do not have the force of law.  CFJ Statements whose most
recent revisions are ruled "True" or "False" are regarded, with their
associated rulings, as explicit statements of current game custom at the
time of the ruling.  At no time does a CFJ Statement, even when ruled
"True", become or create a rule.  Rulings of "Undecided" or "Refused"
and their associated statements have no force of law or custom.  Only
the most recent revision number of a CFJ statement is a potential
statement of game custom. 
 
The judge's analysis and any other text apart from the ruling itself
shall have neither force of law nor authority as statements of game
custom, but will be archived by the administrator as a reference to
judicial precedent for future judges.

CFJs must not directly create, alter, or remove rules.  CFJs may not
directly protect rules from alteration or removal from the ruleset.
However, the indirect effect of the ruling on a CFJ may require
alterations to the rule set or game state, to bring them in accordance
with the judgement. 
}} 
 
Then add a rule: 
 
_Judicial Rear View_ 
 
{{
At any time within 7 ndays following the posting of a Judgement of
"True" or "False" on a CFJ, any player may propose that the Judgement be
overruled by posting an Appeal to Overturn in a public forum.  If
limitations on the number of proposals per nweek are in effect, Appeals
to Overturn will not count against a player's proposal limit.  The
Appeal to Overturn will be placed on the next available ballot as a
proposal.  If the proposal is adopted, the ruling on the CFJ will be
changed to "Undecided" by creating a new revision of the CFJ with the
"Undecided" ruling.
}}

end proposal
}}

<notes>

Bob the Voting Fish will be uncreated unless the Sushi modification that
makes Bob the default owner of the Sushi passes.

The kickback provision is less complex.  No wisecracking entities.  It's
probably circumventable, but it does establish that kickbacks are bad as
a matter of game custom, which seems to be a workable compromise based
on comments thus far.  It at least provides a launching pad for CFJs to
be issued against bribery-laced CFJs and proposals.

</notes>