On Mon, 2026-04-06 at 17:10 +0100, Katherina Walshe-Grey via agora- official wrote: > Janet wrote: > > I CFJ, barring 4st: "4st's valid ballot on the referendum on > > Proposal 9261 is to be counted as PRESENT." > > This is CFJ 4132. I assign it to ais523. > > Original CFJ and caller's arguments: > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2025-November/054973.html > https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2025-November/054974.html
I judge CFJ 4132 TRUE. The rules about future conditionals are clear, so this just seems to be a matter of wording: should "Endorse the Assessor if it is resolved after 9269, otherwise PRESENT if it is resolved after 9268, otherwise AGAINST." (in a context where "it" clearly refers to "the referendum on proposal 9261") be interpreted, when evaluated at a time when the referendum on 9261 is not currently being resolved, as "if the referendum on 9261 *will be* resolved after 9269 [...]" or as "if the referendum on 9261 *has been* resolved after 9269 [...]"? In this case, we can't rely on the intended meaning of the vote because it was clearly intended to be evaluated at the time when the referendum on 9261 was being resolved, but that's not the time at which the rules actually evaluate it. To me, the "will be" meaning is clearer. The word "is" in English, when referring to an action, normally refers to either an action that is currently occurring or will happen in the future; although "will be" can be used to talk about a future action, it is not necessary (sentences like "I'm submitting a report tomorrow" are perfectly grammatical), whereas "was" or "has been" is generally grammatically necessary except when the context establishes a reference point in the past (sentences like "I'm submitting a report yesterday" are ungrammatical). It is possible for "is" to refer to a state, e.g. "ais523 is active", and being "resolved" could plausibly be a state of a proposal; but this interpretation would be inconsistent with the use of "after" (that wording would look like "Endorse the Assessor if it *became* resolved after 9269 [...]"). As such, I don't think "this is talking about past events" is a viable interpretation; the only two viable options are "this is a future conditional and was intended to be" and "this is too ambiguous to be able to resonably determine a truth value from it". Either would evaluate to PRESENT, and as such the CFJ statement is TRUE. -- ais523 Judge, CFJ 4132
