On Sun, 2008-11-16 at 16:50 -0800, Ed Murphy wrote: > Caller's arguments: > > Rule 2156 purports to define an eligible voter's voting limit, not > merely eir initial or base voting limit. Thus, after Rule 2126 > increased ehird's voting limit, Rule 2156 reasserted itself and > reset it to eir caste. Thus, the resolutions were ineffective > because they mis-reported ehird's valid votes. > > Of course, this should be fixed so that Rule 2126's method works > in some sort of useful method. It should probably also be limited > to the first four days of a proposal's voting period, to allow time > for scams to be countered by democratization. > > Caller's evidence: > > Rule 2126 (Notes), relevant excerpt > > (7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player's > voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is > in progress by 1. > > Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions), relevant excerpt > > The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is > eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded > up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
Gratuitous arguments: The only meaningful interpretation of an "increase in voting limit" here is something that causes the voting limit to be higher than it would otherwise be; applying an increase in voting limit to a player means they have more votes than their caste would suggest. This conflicts rule 2156, but rule 2126 takes precedence. Also, appellant argument in CFJ 2196b: "Obviously it is preferable for a phrase in the rules to mean something than to mean nothing." Personally I disagree with this and think that rules actually mean nothing by default, but as the Judge there agreed with the appellants with no apparent controversy it seems reasonable that game custom suggests that a rule does mean something by default. -- ais523
