I support.
On 2017-11-11 14:03, Aris Merchant wrote:
I support. The ruling that time isn't taken into account is worrying, and
I'm not sure all the implications were fully considered.
-Aris
On Fri, Nov 10, 2017 at 6:42 PM Alexis Hunt <aler...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 7 Nov 2017 at 21:39 Publius Scribonius Scholasticus <
p.scribonius.scholasti...@gmail.com> wrote:
I judge CFJ 3591 FALSE because Rule 208 reads "The vote collector for an
unresolved Agoran decision CAN resolve it by announcement, indicating
the outcome." Given that the decision was not unresolved, G. could not
resolve the election. According to Rule 2043, the purported resolution
ratified, the decision's existence and outcome. However per Rule 208,
gamestate changing effects occur at the resolution of the decision and
the decision had been resolved, so the gamestate had already changed.
Rule 2043 does not provide that the resolution date ratifies or that
effects ratify, therefore the document purported ratification, but was
not a ratification and therefore the facts ratify, but no further
effects occured.
I intend, with 2 Support, to make a Motion to Reconsider this judgment. I
think that this judgement falls short on two points:
- First, it says that only the existence and outcome are ratified, but that
is not correct. Rule 2154 clearly provides that the fact that "[the
decision] was resolved as indicated" is ratified as well.
- Second, it fails to analyze the nature of the game state change actually
performed, since ratification can change any part of the game state, not
only that mentioned in the ratified claim.
G. argued on a-d:
"I'm saying that ratifying the "resolution" only would ratify "the option
selected was X" and nothing else, which is how PSS judged.
"Ratifying that the decision was "resolved as indicated" does ratify
the resolution
option of X, but *additionally* ratifies that the decision
was "resolved as indicated"; that is, by a particular Decision announcement
with specified votes (and by the facts of the announcement, on a particular
date)."
I am not sure I agree with the first paragraph, but I definitely agree with
the second paragraph. Ratifying that the decision was resolved as
indicated, as provided for by rule 2154, ratifies that the decision was
resolved by the announcement with the facts therein. This necessarily
implies the game consequences of the decision, such as proposal adoption
(likely redundant with the following line), election resolution, or a win.
-Alexis
