This is why the Caller should always provide arguments, because otherwise the judge doesn't know the point of contention (e.g. if it was a question about specific ballots, and not the proposal-language, the arguments should reflect that). I self-file a motion to reconsider this judgement. On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote: > Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling. > Proposal/decision issue aside, in this situation: > > Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G” > Then G votes “FOR” > > Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does, because e > were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR. But another > reasonable interpretation would be that I do, because my conditional vote > isn’t evaluated until the end of the voting period, so until then I haven’t > really voted FOR. This isn’t really addressed in the judgement. > > Gaelan > > > On Dec 3, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote: > >> 3691 called by Jacob Arduino 2 December 2018, assigned to G. 2 > >> December 2018: "'the last person to vote FOR a proposal' is the last > >> person to submit a ballot regarding that proposal which evaluates to > >> FOR." > > > > I judge CFJ 3691 as follows: > > > > The rules do not describe voting on [or FOR] proposals at all. The > > rules describe voting on "decisions to adopt proposals". To see that > > this is a consequential variation (in terms of technicalities), note > > that a proposal can be part of more than one decision to adopt it (e.g., > > if it fails quorum). > > > > As part of our long-standing shorthand, people casting votes by > > announcement do so, generally, by stating that they are voting on the > > proposals, not on the decisions to adopt proposals. This is very useful > > shorthand and valid, as there is no ambiguity that their votes refer to > > Decisions. However, if someone wrote actual formal rules text that > > described what happened when someone "voted FOR proposals", it would > > quickly be pointed out that "voting FOR proposals" is not a regulated, > > described action. > > > > So the answer to this question is: it depends. If "the last person to > > vote FOR a proposal" was used colloquially (say within another player's > > conditional vote), this CFJ would be TRUE. If that text was used within > > a Rule, it would be FALSE, as the rules don't map "voting FOR a > > proposal" to "submitting a valid ballot of FOR on the decision to adopt > > the proposal", so that would be referring to some other (perhaps > > non-existent, unregulated, or impossible-to-perform) process. > > > > If the text is contained within a proposal (midway between the formality > > of rules and colloquial shorthand for actions), I think it would err on > > the side of rules text (i.e. it would refer to a non-existent process), > > due to the technical and precise level on which proposals function. > > > > Since the answer to the CFJ is therefore "it depends on context", I > > judge DISMISS (insufficient information). > > > > > >
