Proto-judgement follows: On 6/17/11 8:34 PM, Ed Murphy wrote: > Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3035 > > ============================== CFJ 3035 ============================== > > At least one vote of "FOR, FOR" on the decision to adopt > Proposal 7077 is valid. > > ======================================================================== > > Caller: omd > > Judge: woggle > Judgement: > > ======================================================================== > > History: > > Called by omd: 17 Jun 2011 01:12:50 GMT > Assigned to woggle: (as of this message) > > ======================================================================== > > Caller's Arguments: > > The mechanism for submitting multiple options which might > be the same already existed: submitting multiple ballots. A more > reasonable reading of "which two of the available options" requires > two different options, although Rule 683 clearly allowed/allows "FOR, > PRESENT".
Judge's evidence: Attempted votes on P7077:
G.: {{
I vote:
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
FOR x FOR
}}
Walker: {{
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
FOR
}}
Tanner: {{
I vote:
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
FOR
}}
Murphy: {{
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
FOR
}}
ehird: {{
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
AGAINT
[...]
means FOR
}}
omd: {{
> 7077 3 omd Fix "fixed" flexibility
AGAINST
}}
Decision:
I protojudge CFJ 3035 TRUE.
R683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) specifies that an author "submits a
ballot ... by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the
available options e selects" but also specifies that a ballot is valid
only if "identifies *the* option selected by the voter" (emphasis added).
Noting that the requirement for two options is on the "notice" and not
the "ballot", I find the "two of the available options" restriction
requires ballots to be submitted in pairs and "valid notice" is a notice
containing one or more valid ballots.
Then there are several issues to consider:
* whether the options need to be distinct. Based on Agora's preference
for mathematical terms (R754), I rule that they do not;
* whether "FOR x FOR" is a vote of FOR twice. This seems like a clear
attempt to specify voting for "FOR" more than once. Since "FOR" clearly
isn't a number and R683 mentions the possibility of selecting two
options, I rule that "x" clearly enough delimits two votes for P7077 in
G.'s response to the distribution; and
* whether R2280 is sufficient for a vote of "FOR" to be a vote of
"FOR, FOR":
If players can select non-distinct options, then they could specify
reasonable short hands for two non-distinct options and still indicate
which they are selecting. R2280 serves to provide this short-hand for
all players, so I rule that "FOR" clearly specifies "FOR, FOR" (when the
voting limit is 2 for the decision).
>
> ========================================================================
>
> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=3036
>
> ============================== CFJ 3036 ==============================
>
> Under the ruleset in place during the decision to adopt Proposal
> 7077, a vote of "FOR" is implicitly treated as "FOR, FOR"
>
> ========================================================================
I protojudge CFJ 3036 TRUE.
- woggle
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
