Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
comex wrote: > Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an > "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the > administrators, know what Y is. > > ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme? Depends whether the rules require one to "specify" or merely "indicate". There was an old case where "I transfer all my stuff to " was rejected because the standard was "specify" at the time.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, ais523 wrote: > On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific > > proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a > > conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might > > imply. > > You don't vote on proposals, though; you vote on decisions. Thus that > would be equivalent to "If I can, I vote for it". yeah yeah I'm typing quickly you knew what I meant. :P -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is > > discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I > > generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I > > admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any > > relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, > > it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say > > that everyone voting "should have" known about it. > > Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2 > (which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an > administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation > of "all proposals" into "P7000, P7001, P7002" is happening at a deeper > level than language or dialect transformations. Well, it's a mapping. So yes it's deeper. The administrative convenience is that we allow such mapping in the first place. What makes it into the "convenience" rather than "absolute" category is that (since it's not strongly rules-governed) it can be discarded if the "deeper level mapping" causes contradictions, etc. > Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me > to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus, > a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did > acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message. In fact, > that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of > proposals to find out what I was voting on. However, the set of > proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged) > might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective > in voting for, if "common opinion" were wrong about some relevant > fact. > > Does this make sense? Yes, it makes perfect sense, that legalistically one can "identify" by providing a mapping without "acknowledging" that a particular proposal belongs to the mapping. I think it's a version of the Sir Humphrey logic I posted a bit ago. As opposed to what I'm saying, that in a R683 context, one should take identifying and acknowledging as synonymous. Or one could go further, and turn into a preponderance of the evidence case: "comex does not typically vote like that (evidence of past voting record) so eir vote is evidence that e was acknowledging an odd proposal, which the preponderance of the evidence suggests must be that one." As I said then, I'm uncertain, but I think the direction one goes here is within reasonable discretion of a judge either way (certainly I agree now it's not as clear-cut as I made it sound in my judgement, when it felt more obvious to me). Again, it would be good if a third opinion jumped in :). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 2010-08-13 at 13:59 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific > proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a > conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might > imply. You don't vote on proposals, though; you vote on decisions. Thus that would be equivalent to "If I can, I vote for it". -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: > >>> > >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's > >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when > >>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you > >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. > >> > >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to > >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that > >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) > >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly > >> contradicts those precedents. > > > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. > > Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned. Indeed, now that I look at 1307, there is considerable precedent drift in what "specificy." In fact, it looks paradoxically like the rules language has gotten tougher while our interpretation of that language has gotten much weaker (or if you like, more generous). The only direct Rule change that I can point to that might allow the weaker interpretation is that the implementation of conditional votes led to a cultural willingness to permit conditionals in other areas. Speaking of which, returning to the matter directly at hand on the specific proposal, I didn't think about what considering "all decisions" as a conditional "if a proposal is in its voting period, I vote for it" might imply. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Sean Hunt wrote: > On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: >>> >>> "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's >>> some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when >>> assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you >>> had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. >> >> Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to >> "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that >> you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) >> applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly >> contradicts those precedents. > > I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; > for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a > proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By > contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. Sure. But that directly contradicts the precedent I just mentioned.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On 08/13/2010 01:49 PM, comex wrote: "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly contradicts those precedents. I consider 'unambiguously and clearly' to be allowed to include shorthands; for instance, it is so widely accepted now that FOR in response to a proposal is a vote FOR, because it still conveys enough information. By contrast, due to historical precedent, AGAINT is viewed as ambiguous. -coppro
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is > discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I > generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I > admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any > relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, > it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say > that everyone voting "should have" known about it. Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2 (which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation of "all proposals" into "P7000, P7001, P7002" is happening at a deeper level than language or dialect transformations. Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus, a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message. In fact, that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of proposals to find out what I was voting on. However, the set of proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged) might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective in voting for, if "common opinion" were wrong about some relevant fact. Does this make sense? > "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's > some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when > assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you > had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. Actually, the relevant text at the time of CFJ 1307 said you had to "specify" the assets to transfer. Rule 478 currently requires that you "unambiguously and clearly specify" the action, which (CFJ 2238) applies to the parameters of an action. Current game custom directly contradicts those precedents.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: > it's hard to have a proposal out there in its > voting period without passing the "most people should know about this" > test. In fact, for rule change proposals, R101 makes it very likely IMPOSSIBLE. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences > >> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots > >> > >> So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in > >> the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently > >> exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on > >> it"... > > > > Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where > > practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally > > you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. > > Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an > "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the > administrators, know what Y is. Well you're right. It's non-ideal. But if we consider any sort of "I vote for all" or "I object to all" then we have the following choices: 1. Disallow it entirely. 2. Allow it entirely, including for future-discovered (platonic) ones. 3. Figure out which ones the sender reasonably should "know about" at the time of sending and apply it to those only. 4. Disallow the whole thing retroactively if it turns out there was one no-one knew about. (ugh). None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation, it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say that everyone voting "should have" known about it. It's also worth noting that it's hard to have a proposal out there in its voting period without passing the "most people should know about this" test. And we've also acknowledged the problem without facing it, because whenever someone issues an overly broad conditional (such as your recent ribbon awarding? :) ) everyone admits it's a pain in the rear amd gets annoyed, but seems to agree that the right thing to do is figure out what the conditional applies to in a platonic sense. > ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme? "I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences >> > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots >> >> So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in >> the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently >> exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on >> it"... > > Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where > practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally > you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the administrators, know what Y is. ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences > > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots > > So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in > the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently > exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on > it"... Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. Note: in this discussion I haven't changed my mind, but it's certainly made me realize that perhaps a third opinion (new CFJ?) may be in order. > Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the > recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone > thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y? I can't think of one offhand. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on it"... Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin > >> wrote: > >> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may > >> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), > >> > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, > >> > therefore not voting. > >> > >> This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* > > > > Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an > > administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and > > unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, > > that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of > > logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G. > > But the statement "I vote on all decisions etc" implies only that at > least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that > P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000. I agree, strictly it doesn't, just the way I vote 100xFOR isn't 100 announcements of casting a ballot FOR (or at least, it wasn't until very recently). My point is, if we allow those sorts of notices to map onto individual ballots, then we must take each of those individual mappings of having all the properties of individual ballots (including identifying each matter specifically). So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots (which we do; no one has directly questioned 100xFOR for a long time) then you must allow those legal fictions to include all the properties that are required for ballots to have, not just some of them. Clearly identifying the specific matter is one of those properties. So you can claim that such mappings have all of the properties of votes (current practice and precedent) or claim they have none of them (major reversal of same). But not halfway in between. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:34 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: >> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may >> > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), >> > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, >> > therefore not voting. >> >> This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* > > Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an > administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and > unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, > that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of > logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G. But the statement "I vote on all decisions etc" implies only that at least one such decision exists; it certainly does not acknowledge that P7000 exists, so by your logic, it couldn't be a valid vote on P7000.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may > > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), > > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, > > therefore not voting. > > This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug* Well, the current jurisprudence is that they're effective as an administrative convenience, as long as they can be mapped onto a clear and unambiguous set of individual votes (and therefore, in a strict legal sense, that they identify every member of that set). I know I used this sort of logic in CFJ 2316 (that's the first CFJ that comes to mind). -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 7:23 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may > not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), > you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, > therefore not voting. This implies that blanket votes are generally ineffective. *shrug*
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every > message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the > gamestate, "acknowledgement" only makes sense in the context of > incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran > terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on > proposals. I'd agree with you for many sorts of actions, but I have a hard time getting around the fact that a ballot must be interpreted as "clearly identifying" a matter in order to be a ballot. And rule 683 states that the voter must publish a valid notice (not that the gamestate must platonically interpret it, but the voter must publish it), so it implies rather strongly that the voter must publish something that, by publication itself, clearly identifies (and therefore acknowledges) the matter. That's a higher standard of identification, similar to the current jurisprudence around dependent actions. In other words, if you merely allude to something that may or may not exist (rather than acknowledging something that does exist), you may be referring to it, but you're not "clearly identifying" it, therefore not voting. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly > identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't > have > been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those > places > that by using "clearly identifying" we require that level of specificity. > It's > a straight-up requirement of being a ballot. I could have voted FOR through blanket vote without even knowing the proposal existed. Indeed, before this message, I never actually stated that I /did/ know it existed, although you might have guessed it from my behavior. Making whether a specific message is a public acknowledgement depend on my state of mind at the time I sent it is rather dangerous. The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the gamestate, "acknowledgement" only makes sense in the context of incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on proposals. > You can't identify without > acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the > decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other > unique characteristics for identification purposes). I can give you all my chits even if they have /no/ unique characteristics for identification purposes.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be > > interpreted > > as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must > > acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of > > indirection" argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the > > proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally > > use > > for decisions to adopt proposals. > > Not the one that I used: > > "I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period." > > But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the > message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as > referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my > message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time > in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time > acknowledging the existence of anything? But it wasn't sent at any time, it was sent at a specific time. If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't have been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those places that by using "clearly identifying" we require that level of specificity. It's a straight-up requirement of being a ballot. You can't identify without acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other unique characteristics for identification purposes). You could argue that it failed to clearly identify the particular matter, and therefore wasn't a ballot, and therefore the Assessor's announcement was wrong. But that goes counter to most established gameplay of allowing that level of convenience, and furthermore, the fact that it was a valid ballot, and therefore identified the specific matter in question, has ratified. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be > interpreted > as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must > acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of > indirection" argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the > proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use > for decisions to adopt proposals. Not the one that I used: "I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period." But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time acknowledging the existence of anything?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > > So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does > > > that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal > > > 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. > > > Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think > > > that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): > > > > It was a blanket vote for. > > All such blanket votes are administrative conveniences for individual votes > for proposals. Any statement that is taken as applying a vote to a proposal > must specify (and thereby acknowledge) that proposal, otherwise the vote > would > fail. -G. Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be interpreted as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of indirection" argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use for decisions to adopt proposals. -G.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [CotC] CFJs 2821-22 remanded to G. by ais523, Wooble, Murphy
On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 4:56 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > So, the Assessor's announcement was not a win announcement. Where does > > that leave us? According to the voting record, comex voted for proposal > > 6740, and this is a clear public acknowledgment of its existence. > > Therefore, comex was not a member of this set (why does everyone think > > that e was? By the Assessor's report it's pretty clear e wasn't): > > It was a blanket vote for. All such blanket votes are administrative conveniences for individual votes for proposals. Any statement that is taken as applying a vote to a proposal must specify (and thereby acknowledge) that proposal, otherwise the vote would fail. -G.
