I judge that this statement is FALSE. R207 is silent on the question of whether Roujo can can legally cast votes in the manner e attempted. By R217 I must therefore be guided by game custom and spirit of the game. Game custom is not sufficiently established to be of use here. The spirit of this game seems to me to have two salient characteristics: (1) speed, and (2) heavy reliance on the Speaker to keep things moving along smoothly so that the blitz character of the game can be maintained. Therefore, we should be very cautious about opening the door to practices which impose non-trivial extra burdens on the Speaker.
Since Roujo's statement makes all the votes e attempted to case conditional on the results of calculations to be performed by the Speaker, that is, tallying the votes already cast up to the moment of Roujo's message, it is my judgement that none of those attempted votes succeeded. On 27 June 2013 11:14, Fool <fool1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Why not! I call for judgement on: > > "Roujo has cast valid votes on proposals by means of the message quoted > below." > > On 26/06/2013 10:12 AM, Jonathan Rouillard wrote: > >> I also vote FOR all current proposals, except those who currently have >> a majority of AGAINST votes - I vote AGAINST on those. >> >> > Arguments: > He can only vote for or against (207). It makes sense to allow > conditionals but votes are hidden from him (207) so in this case the > condition cannot be resolved by him, even if I can resolve it. > > > By 331, I must randomly select a Voter on 341. My virtual 8-sided die > comes up.... > Steve. > > You have 24 hours. > > -Dan > -- Steve Gardner Research Grants Development Faculty of Business and Economics Monash University, Caulfield campus Rm: S8.04 | ph: (613) 9905 2486 e: steven.gard...@monash.edu *** NB I am now working 1.0 FTE, but I am away from my desk** on alternate Thursday afternoons (pay weeks). *** Two facts about lists: (1) one can never remember the last item on any list; (2) I can't remember what the other one is.
