I support the intent for an A.N. and object to the intent for a M.N. Although the thesis is interesting, it is also very limited in scope.
-Aris On Fri, Oct 27, 2017 at 1:51 PM, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote: > I support the intent for an A.N. > > I object to the intent for a M.N. > > > On 10/27/2017 01:13 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> >> For the below Thesis: >> >> >> I intend to award Alexis the Associate of Nomic Degree, with 2 Agoran >> Consent. >> >> >> I intend to award Alexis the Master of Nomic Degree, with 2 Agoran Consent. >> >> >> Please be clear which intents you are supporting/objecting to! >> >> >> I pledge to act on exactly one of the above intents (assuming at least >> one receives the appropriate Consent), using the ratio of Support/Object >> as a guide to the appropriate one, with ties or mixed consensus broken >> in favor of the higher degree. >> >> >> >> ALEXIS'S FINAL THESIS SUBMISSION >> >> TL;DR (aka abstract): Conditional votes work, but with two caveats. >> First, they operate prospectively and, when cast, their value is >> determined by looking into the future to the end of the voting period. >> Hence, they are indeterminate. Second, the default of PRESENT does not >> work at all, meaning that the validity of a conditional vote is also >> indeterminate. Also, CFJ 3569 is FALSE because Trust Token endorsement >> must be direct. >> >> This thesis and judgment is written as a reconsideration of CFJ 3569. >> The statement of the CFJ is "If grok had not deregistered, e would have >> issued trust tokens to both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899." >> >> The context of the CFJ is as follows: grok voted :Endorse Aris" on >> proposal 7899, but Aris's vote was "Endorse the Arbitor". G. was the >> Arbitor at the end of the voting period. In effect, the CFJ is asking >> whether grok's endorsement was effective of endorsing G. as well for the >> purpose of Rule 2452. >> >> I originally judged CFJ 3569 to be FALSE, finding that Rule 683's >> condition requiring that a "valid vote" be clearly indicate meant that >> conditional votes failed altogether; since a conditional vote does not >> clearly indicate a single valid vote. A number of arguments were raised >> in response, leading to a Motion to Reconsider. I will summarize the >> critical arguments below: >> >> From G.: >> >> - The judgment cited precedent that the correctness of a ballot is >> evaluated at the time of its submission, but did not specify which >> precedent, most precedent being around informally conditional actions >> (e.g. "if I own an X, I do Y with it") >> - Rule 2127 is explicitly intended to define the effect of conditionals >> and get around the usual definition, by defining what "clearly >> specified" means in the context of a vote. This could operate either by >> deferral of the determination of clearly specified, or by operating >> retroactively. >> - Even in absence of the above effects, Rule 2127's default of PRESENT >> would apply to a ballot cast conditionally, so that such a ballot is at >> least evaluated in the instant to PRESENT. >> >> From myself: >> - If Rule 2127 had retroactive effect, then it would create the >> possibility of retroactively changing the outcome of another proposal, >> by making a vote conditional on a vote on a different proposal; if the >> latter was a conditional then retroactively changing it could also >> retroactively change the first vote. From this, paradox could arise. >> >> From Aris: >> - Present conditionals are well-understood to succeed, under the general >> built-up framework of interpreting conditional actions, as such a >> conditional always identifies a vote. >> - A ballot is a textual entity, containing a conditional that should be >> evaluated when the ballot is evaluated, i.e. when the decision is >> resolved. The ballot is merely a notice of something in the future. >> >> To begin, I will first point to Rule 217, which states "When >> interpreting and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes >> precedence. Where the text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to >> be augmented by game custom, common sense, past judgments, and >> consideration of the best interests of the game." In regards to >> conditionals votes, it is clear that all of the augmenting factors point >> to conditional votes functioning in some fashion: game custom certainly >> establishes that they do, as do the best interests of the game. Past >> judgments on conditional voting are in line with them functioning at >> all, and common sense (into which one can likely subsume legal >> principles of statutory interpretation) imply that Rule 2127 (the rule >> defining conditional votes) would not exist if it did not have some purpose. >> >> So the question then is, what does the text of the rules state? CFJ 3465 >> is the strongest precedent I am aware of regarding ballot evaluation. In >> it, I successfully argued to the H. Judge nichdel that the correctness >> (note: this is distinct from validity) of a ballot was evaluated at the >> time of its submission. >> >> I will reiterate the critical arguments here. Rule 683 states "An entity >> submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying >> the following conditions:" followed by a list of conditions. The term >> "notice" is, in this context, undefined by the rules. Per usual English >> interpretation, in this context, "notice" simply means a document. >> >> Rule 683 is clear that the mechanism to submit a ballot is to publish >> the notice. Publishing is defined by Rule 478 as sending a public >> message. It follows that if, at the time of publication, the notice does >> not satisfy the conditions set out in Rule 683, no ballot is submitted. >> The fact that the notice may later satisfy the conditions is immaterial, >> as the notice is not being published at that point. >> >> So can conditional votes generally satisfy the conditions? The condition >> at issue is "4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as >> determined by the voting method." The definition of valid vote was >> discussed at length in my previous reasons, and I will not discuss them >> here. Absent confounding factors, then, it would be clear that the >> published notice must indeed identify a valid vote. I do agree with >> Aris's arguments that the general rules regarding conditional actions >> apply here. There is nothing disallowing a notice which is conditional, >> at the time of its publication; assuming the conditional is effective >> per the precedents on conditional actions, such a notice does identify a >> valid vote once the conditional is resolved. >> >> Rule 2127 is, however, a confounding factor. As G. argued, it is clearly >> intended to get around the usual way that conditionals can act only in >> the present, and instead creates a form of future-conditional vote. Note >> that I must at this point reject Aris's argument that a conditional vote >> is evaluated at the time of the decision's resolution. Rule 2127 is >> explicit that the conditional is evaluated at the end of the voting >> period, and there is nothing in the rules or game custom to contend >> otherwise. >> >> As G. noted in eir arguments, Rule 2127 states "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, rules to the >> contrary notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the value >> of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting period. >> If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast." >> Of note is the fact that it explicitly attempts to take precedence over >> other rules (including 683) to define that "the selected option... is >> clearly specified" under the circumstances it provides when a >> conditional vote is made. >> >> Does this apply to condition 4? After reexamining the circumstances, it >> appears to me that the answer is yes. While the language used is >> slightly different (option vs vote, clearly indicated vs clearly >> specified), and while some of those terms are terms of art within the >> rules, none is explicitly defined, so there is some leeway in >> interpretation here. Note also that 2127 itself uses "clearly >> identified" in the following sentence, indicating some looseness in >> terminology. In my original judgment, I had not considered this line of >> text in the way that G.'s arguments encouraged, and this represents the >> critical change in my reasoning. >> >> Unfortunately, this still presents some difficulty, because the >> definition is prospective. The direct consequence of interpreting >> condition 4 using the definition specified in Rule 2127 is that the >> correctness of the ballot at the time of its submission is determined by >> looking into the future. The only potential save could be, as G. argued, >> the following sentence: "If the option cannot be clearly identified, a >> vote of PRESENT is cast." This does not directly bear on the outcome of >> CFJ 3569, but in the interests of completeness and avoiding simply >> postponing the controversy, I will analyze how to evaluate conditional >> votes below. >> >> Having determined that a conditional vote is indeed valid provided its >> condition is determinate, the only remaining questions required to >> resolve this case is whether grok's vote had a determinate condition and >> whether Aris and G., who both cast valid votes on the decision, were >> "endorsed by [grok]'s valid vote on the Decision" (Rule 2452). It is >> clear that grok's vote had a determinate condition, making it valid, and >> it clearly endorsed Aris (regardless of how such it would actually be >> evaluated). So grok would have issued Aris a trust token. However, did >> grok's vote endorse G.? >> >> Per Rule 2127, "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." While >> this definition technically applies only to the point when the vote >> would cast, it would be unreasonable to interpret the meaning of "a vote >> endorsing that voter" as meaning anything other than "a conditional vote >> whose value is the same as the most common value (if any) among that >> voter's valid votes on that decision." There are two reasonable ways to >> evaluate this definition on grok's vote then: either it is an inherent >> property of the vote, or it is evaluated, like all conditionals, at the >> end of the voting period. >> >> A quirk in the wording of Rule 2127 gives a possible hint. It defines >> endorsing votes as an equivalence with a specific class of votes, rather >> than merely defining what it means to endorse a player. Consequently, if >> "equivalent" is interpreted as it would be in a mathematical context, >> any conditional vote whose value is as described in Rule 2127 is an >> endorsing vote, regardless of whether or not the vote explicitly uses >> the word "endorse". The terms are interchangeable. >> >> Substituting this into Rule 2452, that would mean that grok issues a >> Trust Token to G. if "grok had a valid conditional vote whose value is >> the same as the most common value (if any) among G's valid votes on the >> decision". If we evaluate this at the end of the voting period, then a >> thoroughly absurd result ensues: not only would G. be issued a trust >> token, but also every other player who cast the same vote. As such, we >> must interpret the definition as applying to an intrinsic property of >> the conditional. Thus, we cannot consider Aris's vote when we decide >> whether grok's vote endorsed, G. and so it did not. grok would not have >> issued G. a Trust Token. >> >> It's not necessarily clear, however, that "equivalent" in the Agoran >> ruleset should be interpreted this way (an old rule that mathematical >> definitions take precedence having been repealed). If we interpret this >> wording as being merely an odd way of defining the term endorsement, >> then the outcome is the same, however. The definition of endorsement >> specifically applies to valid votes; thus, in order to resolve grok's >> conditional vote, we must first resolve Aris's. A different definition >> of endorsement, where grok's vote copied the "Endorse the Arbitor" from >> Aris's vote, might lead to a conclusion where grok did endorse G., but >> we clearly must resolve Aris's vote first, so grok's vote is never >> directly dependent on G.'s. >> >> Thus, either way, CFJ 3569 is FALSE. >> >> With that resolved, how then should a conditional vote be evaluated? >> This is unfortunately a thorny issue. As I wrote above, whether or not >> the vote is valid is effectively determined prospectively, by looking >> into the future. Before digging deeper, however, I will draw attention >> to one key point: the question of a ballot's correctness (i.e. whether >> it meets the requirements of Rule 683) is independent from the question >> of how it is evaluated in an Agoran decision. Thus, I see two remaining >> questions: first, is a conditional vote with an indeterminate condition >> correctly submitted, or does it fail to clearly identify a valid vote? >> and second, how does one evaluate a conditional vote? >> >> To address the first question, I quote again Rule 2127: "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, rules to >> the contrary notwithstanding, is clearly specified if and only if the >> value of the condition(s) is/are determinate at the end of the voting >> period. If the option cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is >> cast." The first sentence provides very clear conditions about when the >> option is clearly specified. What does the second sentence do in this >> context? Does it indicate that, when the condition is indeterminate, the >> selected option is clearly specified as PRESENT? >> >> I think that this cannot be the case, because to do so would completely >> obviate the definition of "clearly specified" in the first place. Why >> would the rule state that an option is not clearly specified if the >> conditional is indeterminate, only to change its mind in the next >> sentence? This does not actually matter, however, because the first >> sentence contains a precedence claim and the second sentence does not. >> Per Rule 2240, this means that the first sentence takes precedence and, >> consequently, the second sentence does not modify it. If the condition >> is indeterminate at the end of the voting period, the vote is not >> clearly specified. Per the reasoning above, this means that the >> conditional ballot is not submitted. >> >> What, then, is the meaning of the second sentence? The most reasonable >> interpretation, in context, is that it is trying to say that if the >> condition is indeterminate, then at the end of the voting period, we >> resolve it to PRESENT rather than attempting to evaluate it. If this is >> the correct interpretation, it is meaningless, because by the above we >> can never get to that point. There is an alternative interpretation: the >> second sentence is not providing for a way to evaluate the original >> conditional ballot but instead provided for an altogether new, >> unconditional ballot of PRESENT to be cast. >> >> Unfortunately, this interpretation also fails to have any meaningful >> effect. The vote counting procedure is defined in Rule 955 in terms of >> valid ballots, and Rule 683 provides a clear definition: "A valid ballot >> is a ballot, correctly submitted, that has not been withdrawn. During >> the voting period of an Agoran decision, a player CAN by announcement >> withdraw (syn. retract) a ballot that e submitted on that decision." As >> Rule 683 has a lower ID number than Rule 2127, by Rule 1030, Rule 683 >> takes precedence. There is thus no possibility of Rule 2127's "vote of >> PRESENT" actually being a valid ballot. >> >> So in conclusion, the answer is that a conditional vote is valid if and >> only if the condition ends up being determinate. If it is not, the >> entire vote fails; PRESENT is not an alternative. >> >> Finally, the question comes of evaluating a conditional vote. Happily, I >> see no reason why, for a valid vote, Rule 2127 should be anything other >> than what it straightforwardly says. Provided that the conditional is >> valid (i.e. determinate at the end of the voting period), it is >> evaluated as one would expect, at the end of the voting period. Prior to >> then, however, just like with the validity of the vote in the first >> place, the actual value of the vote is indeterminate. >> >> What are the practical implications of this? First, it is important to >> distinguish between prospective and retroactive effects here. The >> validity of a conditional vote is not retroactively changed at the end >> of the voting period, when we finally are able to decide if it is >> determinate or not. Rather, the validity *in the first place* is >> dependent on the future. In some cases, this can create >> effectively-retroactive effects. For instance, a subsequent, otherwise >> valid ballot cast by the same voter, without withdrawing the first one, >> would enter the same indeterminate state of validity, since it is valid >> if and only if the first ballot is invalid. >> >> This may present situations where the game may be difficult to play, but >> the concept of indeterminacy provides a shield in some cases. Rule 1023 >> means that the validity of the vote is indeterminate before the voting >> period ends, since it cannot be determined from information reasonably >> available. Rule 2127 itself provides that if a conditional vote is >> indeterminate, it doesn't work. So, taking from the example in my >> arguments, if a vote on one proposal is conditional on a vote on another >> proposal ending later, then it necessarily fails because the condition >> will be indeterminate. Likewise, Rule 2162 protects against >> indeterminately-valued switches. >> >> In conclusion, rules are hard. >> >> > >
