I submit the following thesis, entitled "On Conditional Votes and Trust
Tokens":
TL;DR (aka abstract): Conditional votes work, but with two caveats. First,
they operate prospectively and, when cast, their value is determined by
looking into the future to the end of the voting period. Hence, they are
indeterminate. Second, the default of PRESENT does not work at all, meaning
that the validity of a conditional vote is also indeterminate. Also, CFJ
3569 is FALSE because Trust Token endorsement must be direct.
This thesis and judgment is written as a reconsideration of CFJ 3569. The
statement of the CFJ is "If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued
trust tokens to both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899."
The context of the CFJ is as follows: grok voted :Endorse Aris" on proposal
7899, but Aris's vote was "Endorse the Arbitor". G. was the Arbitor at the
end of the voting period. In effect, the CFJ is asking whether grok's
endorsement was effective of endorsing G. as well for the purpose of Rule
2452.
I originally judged CFJ 3569 to be FALSE, finding that Rule 683's condition
requiring that a "valid vote" be clearly indicate meant that conditional
votes failed altogether; since a conditional vote does not clearly indicate
a single valid vote. A number of arguments were raised in response, leading
to a Motion to Reconsider. I will summarize the critical arguments below:
>From G.:
- The judgment cited precedent that the correctness of a ballot is
evaluated at the time of its submission, but did not specify which
precedent, most precedent being around informally conditional actions (e.g.
"if I own an X, I do Y with it")
- Rule 2127 is explicitly intended to define the effect of conditionals and
get around the usual definition, by defining what "clearly specified" means
in the context of a vote. This could operate either by deferral of the
determination of clearly specified, or by operating retroactively.
- Even in absence of the above effects, Rule 2127's default of PRESENT
would apply to a ballot cast conditionally, so that such a ballot is at
least evaluated in the instant to PRESENT.
>From myself:
- If Rule 2127 had retroactive effect, then it would create the possibility
of retroactively changing the outcome of another proposal, by making a vote
conditional on a vote on a different proposal; if the latter was a
conditional then retroactively changing it could also retroactively change
the first vote. From this, paradox could arise.
>From Aris:
- Present conditionals are well-understood to succeed, under the general
built-up framework of interpreting conditional actions, as such a
conditional always identifies a vote.
- A ballot is a textual entity, containing a conditional that should be
evaluated when the ballot is evaluated, i.e. when the decision is resolved.
The ballot is merely a notice of something in the future.
To begin, I will first point to Rule 217, which states "When interpreting
and applying the rules, the text of the rules takes precedence. Where the
text is silent, inconsistent, or unclear, it is to be augmented by game
custom, common sense, past judgements, and consideration of the best
interests of the game." In regards to contiditional votes, it is clear that
all of the augmenting factors point to conditional votes functioning in
some fashion: game custom certainly establishes that they do, as do the
best interests of the game. Past judgments on conditional voting are in
line with them functioning at all, and common sense (into which one can
likely subsume legal principles of statutory interpretation) imply that
Rule 2127 (the rule defining conditional votes) would not exist if it did
not have some purpose.
So the question then is, what does the text of the rules state? CFJ 3465 is
the strongest precedent I am aware of regarding ballot evaluation. In it, I
successfully argued to the H. Judge nichdel that the correctness (note:
this is distinct from validity) of a ballot was evaluated at the time of
its submission.
I will reiterate the critical arguments here. Rule 683 states "An entity
submits a ballot on an Agoran decision by publishing a notice satisfying
the following conditions:" followed by a list of conditions. The term
"notice" is, in this context, undefined by the rules. Per usual English
interpretation, in this context, "notice" simply means a document.
Rule 683 is clear that the mechanism to submit a ballot is to publish the
notice. Publishing is defined by Rule 478 as sending a public message. It
follows that if, at the time of publication, the notice does not satisfy
the conditions set out in Rule 683, no ballot is submitted. The fact that
the notice may later satisfy the conditions is immaterial, as the notice is
not being published at that point.
So can conditional votes generally satisfy the conditions? The condition at
issue is "4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
the voting method." The definition of valid vote was discus
