On 3/7/2021 12:32 PM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > On 3/7/21 3:29 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: >> >>> On Mar 7, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official >>> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >>> >>> The below CFJ is 3901. I assign it to Gaelan. >>> >>> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901 >>> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901> >>> >>> =============================== CFJ 3901 =============================== >>> >>> The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been >>> EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters >>> on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of >>> R208, R879, and/or R2623. >> >> I'll do a careful reading of the relevant rules myself, but I'd love to hear >> anyone's arguments as to why this isn't PARADOXICAL. >> >> Gaelan > > > The actions fail because Rule 2466/2 provides no mechanism to act on the > behalf of oneself: > >> When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of >> another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN >> perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, >> taking into account any prerequisites for the action.
Counterarguments: R2618 (promises) says: > By doing so, e acts on the creator of the promise's behalf... So if the person cashing is the creator, this is simply "acting on ones own behalf". This indeed is not covered by R2466. However, the rules strongly imply that it can be done and is basically a synonym for doing something yourself (i.e. by announcement). E.g. in the White Ribbon Rule, or using the synonymous "acting as emself" in R2519 about Consent. Basically, if the rules don't contain a method for acting on behalf oneself, much more is broken than promises. -G.
