On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, comex wrote: > On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:49 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> "Information" is *not* merely the words in the message, it is something >> that informs. If you publish (during the voting period) a clear and >> adequate reference to something that may be outside that period, but is >> reasonably available to the other players during the voting period, you are >> publishing "information during the voting period" which clearly allows the >> result to be resolved. > > If I send a message to all players as well as a-d saying that "Y = 4", > and then conditionally vote only if Y=4, what happens? Whether Y > equals 4 can be reasonably determined by all players from information > published during the voting period. But I don't think the intent of > R2127 was to allow that sort of thing. All relevant information > should have to be published to a-b or a-o and stored in the a-b or a-o > archive.
That's why you put all those "reasonably" and "adequately" words into judicial standards or the clarifying legislation so that on a case-by-case basis so each case can define expectations. For example, I'd say that the above wouldn't work if "Y=4" was buried in an obscure corner of an old a-b or a-o post, but would work if the vote provided a link (in the a-b vote) to an a-d post where it was clearly written. Case-by-case. > Indeed, what if the Agoran decision is private, and I publicly > announce that I vote FOR conditionally if Goethe privately voted FOR? > With this interpretation, the truth or falsity of the condition can be > reasonably determined /by the vote collector/ from information > published during the voting period. That's entirely new ground so probably best to wait for private votes to start doing these case-by-case. But for part of this, one could argue was that a vote isn't truly "public" unless the information to evaluate it is equally available to all voters, who all have an interest in counting votes. To this end, up above, I mentioned that a minimal standard might be that it was information adequately available to *players*, not just the vote collector (I thought about that while writing it). Also btw, this private/public case was partially covered in the AGAINT case. -Goethe
