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.
