> On Sun, 29 Apr 2018, Ned Strange wrote: > > I call a CFJ with the statement "If an Agoran Decision were now > > initiated, the quorum would be 8".
I self-file a Motion to Reconsider the above case (CFJ 3636). I deliver the following judgement on it: According to R2466, for A to act on behalf of B to do C, the pieces of information needed are the identities of A and B, a clear statement of the action C, and a clear statement of the relationship of A and B (i.e. that A is acting on behalf of B). Any reasonably clear grammatical construction that specifies all these elements should work. In context, "I also have PSS vote as I do" (where the votes in question were also in the message) does the trick. I was concerned initially that "I have PSS" doesn't get enough of the sense of acting-on-behalf. This might be true if the acting permission came from an obscure contract that no one remembered very well. But in recent game context, the zombie-master relationship is sufficiently clear. The voters on the proposal that determined quorum at the time of the CFJ (Proposal 8041) were thus: Aris, Corona, Trigon, V.J. Rada, Quazie, ATMunn, Kenyon, G., PSS With 9 voters, quorum was 7. I judge FALSE. Caller's Arguments: > > The official Assessment recently published listed 9 voters on the most > > recent proposal, which would make the quorum 7. However, I contended > > that I used PSS to vote FOR that proposal. The language I used was "I > > also have PSS vote as I do".The question is whether that language runs > > afoul of rule 2466 which institutes a "requirement that the agent > > must, in the message in which the action is performed, uniquely > > identify the principal and that the action is being taken on behalf of > > that person. > > > > -- > > From V.J. Rada > >