On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Elliott Hird wrote: > On 23 June 2011 05:18, Pavitra <celestialcognit...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Are you trying to get at the "select two votes" thing? I think it pretty > > clearly evaluates down to one selection at the end. > > No; comex is arguing that the action is interpreted as (vote(MURPH or > AGAINST)); I am arguing for (vote(MURPH) or vote(AGAINST)), and argue > that vote's result, when interpreted as a boolean, should be true iff > the vote is validly cast.
Remember that it's not vote(MURPH) it's Endorse(MURPH). And Endorse(X) is already defined by the rules as (Vote X or PRESENT) using the perl-or. So what we really have is (((Vote Murph) or PRESENT) or AGAINST). The question is, if Murphy doesn't vote, whether the PRESENT stops us from getting to AGAINST (strict perl-or logic interpretation), or whether the AGAINST somehow overrides the PRESENT (common usage/more common sense interpretation and probably the intent). -G.
