On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 22:46, Ed Murphy <[email protected]> wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2833 > > =================== CFJ 2833 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== > > If I publish a message stating "I vote FOR on all Agoran > Decisions in their voting period" but do not further reference > any particular group of decisions, I have "clearly identified" > the matter to be decided for all Decisions in their voting > period, for the purposes of R683(b). > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: G. > Barred: omd > > Judge: Yally > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by G.: 13 Aug 2010 23:13:12 GMT > Assigned to Yally: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can you "clearly identify" something by a blanket specification, without > specifically referencing the fact that you are aware that the something > exists? > > 2. If so, can you identify something without acknowledging that it exists? > > A note that, if the voting sentences in the CFJ statements are taken to be > conditionals (conditional on decisions existing, R2127 seems to restrict > itself to conditional specification of option selected, but is silent on > conditional specification of matter to be decided. Taken with R2280 on > implicit votes, it implies that permission to be general or conditional has > to be found in the rules for each separate part of the voting specification > of R683. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > Rule 683/15 (Power=3) > Voting on Agoran Decisions > > An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a > ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice > indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be > valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: > > (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the > decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the > time of submission. > > (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. > > (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the > voter. > > (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the > voting period. ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to > retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.) > > Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the > first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the > entity's voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an > entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is > zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran > decision is one, except where rules say otherwise. > > The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots > selecting that option. > > Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of > ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would > loosen the constraints specified by this rule. > > Rule 2127/6 (Power=1) > Conditional Votes > > If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. > "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected > option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at > the end of the voting period, and is clearly specified if and > only if the value of the condition(s) can be reasonably > determined (without circularity or paradox) from information > reasonably available during the voting period. If the option > cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast. > > Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to > conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most > common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that > decision. > > Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to > conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most > common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that > decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites. > > Rule 2280/0 (Power=3) > Implicit Votes > > When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast > ballots without explicitly specifying the number of ballots to > be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3"), e casts a > number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that decision. > > ======================================================================== > > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2834 > > =================== CFJ 2834 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== > > If I publish a message stating "I vote FOR on all Agoran > Decisions in their voting period" but do not further reference > any particular group of decisions, I have legally acknowledged > the existence of all Decisions in their voting period. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: G. > Barred: omd > > Judge: Yally > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by G.: 13 Aug 2010 23:13:12 GMT > Assigned to Yally: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > 1. Can you "clearly identify" something by a blanket specification, without > specifically referencing the fact that you are aware that the something > exists? > > 2. If so, can you identify something without acknowledging that it exists? > > A note that, if the voting sentences in the CFJ statements are taken to be > conditionals (conditional on decisions existing, R2127 seems to restrict > itself to conditional specification of option selected, but is silent on > conditional specification of matter to be decided. Taken with R2280 on > implicit votes, it implies that permission to be general or conditional has > to be found in the rules for each separate part of the voting specification > of R683. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Evidence: > > Rule 683/15 (Power=3) > Voting on Agoran Decisions > > An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a > ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice > indicating which one of the available options e selects. To be > valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions: > > (a) The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the > decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the > time of submission. > > (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided. > > (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the > voter. > > (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the > voting period. ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to > retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.) > > Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the > first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the > entity's voting limit on that decision. The voting limit of an > entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is > zero. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran > decision is one, except where rules say otherwise. > > The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots > selecting that option. > > Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of > ballots. This rule takes precedence over any rule that would > loosen the constraints specified by this rule. > > Rule 2127/6 (Power=1) > Conditional Votes > > If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. > "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected > option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at > the end of the voting period, and is clearly specified if and > only if the value of the condition(s) can be reasonably > determined (without circularity or paradox) from information > reasonably available during the voting period. If the option > cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast. > > Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to > conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most > common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that > decision. > > Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to > conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most > common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that > decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites. > > Rule 2280/0 (Power=3) > Implicit Votes > > When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast > ballots without explicitly specifying the number of ballots to > be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3"), e casts a > number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that decision. > > ========================================================================
I set the II of these cases to 1. Arguments for CFJ 2833: Because the rules do not define what clearly identifying a decision means, it seems logical to me to take the common sense, literal definition of that phrase to infer that "clearly identifying" in this case means to explicitly say which decisions are under the identification and which are not. Because there is always a definite set of Agoran decisions in their voting period, and often times the vote FOR is a valid option, this is successful. I therefore judge this case to be TRUE. The rule is obviously trying to prevent against such behavior as "I vote FOR the best Agoran decision currently in its voting period," because that type of statement is ambiguous. I award myself a capacitor for judging this case. I recuse myself as judge from CFJ 2833, because I just don't really know how to deal with it.
