Re: [s-b] [Oracle] CFI 109

[Ed Murphy <emurphy42@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

JamesB wrote:

>> Date: Mon, 25 Jan 2010 13:03:15 -0500
>> From: teucer@xxxxxxxxx
>> To: spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [s-b] [s-d]  Definitely not a Bribe Proposal
>>
>>
>> I submit a CFI: "A proposal has been submitted which, if adopted,
>> would award each player ten points."
>>
>> I name Marr596 as the Defendant.
> 
> This is CFI 109. I assign CFI 109 Judge Murphy.

I judge TRUE, but point out that Rule 50 section A neither prohibits
submitting such a proposal nor nullifies its effects if adopted.

Proto-proposal:  Not everything is a kickback

Amend Rule 50 to read:

  A. Legislative Kickbacks

  No player or other game entity may submit a proposal that
  calls for one or more effects that discriminate in any way
  between players based on their voting actions on one or more
  specifically-identified proposals, and such a proposal
  generates no effects even if adopted.  This does not apply
  to proposals that merely call for changes to how the rules
  discriminate between players based on their voting actions
  on proposals in general.

  B. Judicial Kickbacks

  No player or other game entity may submit a CFI that calls
  for one or more effects that discriminate in any way between
  players based on their judgement or non-judgement of one or
  more specifically-identified CFIs, and such a CFI is treated
  as if the Plaintiff immediately rescinded it.  This does not
  apply to CFIs that merely determine whether one or more past
  judgements or non-judgements constitute rule violations,
  and/or (if so) how the judges are penalized.
_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business