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). > >
