On Sun, 15 May 2011, Sean Hunt wrote: > I intend, with 2 support, to file a motion to reconsider this judgment as the > judge failed to consider: > > Rule 2127: > > If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g. > "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected > option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at > the end of the voting period,
I explicitly and directly considered this at great length. But to being even more painfully explicit about this exact sentence, I'll point out that the above phrase merely states that the final legal vote value is whatever value the conditional has at the end of the voting period (as opposed to, say, when the vote is cast). It does *not* say that the conditional is somehow uninterpretable/undecidable at other times, nor does it preclude such interpretations from being made. -G.
