> 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
> >
