On 08/01/2017 06:49 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3513
(This document is informational only and contains no game actions).
============================== CFJ 3513 =============================
In a message dated Mon, 22 May 2017 15:31:30 -0400, Publius
Scribonius Scholasticus initiated an Agoran Decision.
=======================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: nichdel
Barred: Publius Scribonius Scholasticus
Judgement: TRUE
Wrong judge listed here.
Thanks for keeping the records alive!
=======================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 22 May 2017
Assigned to nichdel: 24 May 2017
nichdel recused: 12 Jun 2017
Assigned to Quazie: 12 Jun 2017
Judged TRUE by Quazie: 12 Jun 2017
=======================================================================
Caller's Arguments:
Given my recent attempt to "announce" OscarMeyr, I wonder if "announced non-
players" is ambiguous? In past, listing "all members of set S" without
specifying the individual set members has been seen as ambiguous, IF it
is beyond a reasonable effort of an average player to dig back and find that
list (as opposed to the officer doing it, as it's eir job) or IF there's
some uncertainty on membership (e.g. OscarMeyr).
For players, there's a handy Registrar's report to refer to, so it's not
beyond a reasonable effort for average players to find that. For non-
players, not so much (and if the rules are silent here, consider there
is an "unfair" burden on non-players who are not clearly listed for
informed voting - especially listing it as "Ørjan and others"!).
It is also unclear if the election is limited to "announced" non-players,
given R2482: "non-player persons can also become valid options during the
voting period by announcement." If this clause is non-functional due to
conflicts with R107, it would be good to identify the problem and correct
R2482. If the clause is *not* non-functional, then the announcement
limiting options to "announced" players is simply incorrect and therefore
invalid.
=======================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and
the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers
(Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots
should be cast in an instant runoff format.
=======================================================================
Judge Quazie's Arguments:
R2482 states
{{{
If nobody has done so in the previous 180 days, the Herald CAN
initiate a Victory Election, a type of Agoran decision. On such
a decision, all players are valid options; non-player persons
can also become valid options during the voting period by
announcement. The vote collector is the Herald, and the voting
method is instant runoff.
Upon the resolution of the decision, if the outcome is a person,
then that person wins the game.
}}}
with the key phrase being:
{{{
non-player persons can also become valid options
during the voting period by announcement.
}}}
PSS's Agoran Decision states:
{{{
True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election
with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid options and
the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all watchers
(??rjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the race. The ballots
should be cast in an instant runoff format.
}}}
with the key phrase being:
{{{
[...] announced non-players and PRESENT as valid options
}}}
I believe that the two key phrases are synonymous. I go so far as to note
that it doesn't even say WHO must do the announcing, so by voting for a
non-player I believe that perhaps counts as an announcement of an intent
to make em a valid voting option.
As a result, if R2482 allows the Herald to start a victory election,
then PSS did so.
So, the question is: is having announced non-persons as a special subset too
much of a burden for the average player?
If it's not too much of a burden for an officer to collect votes in public
messages, it seems like it isn't too much of a burden to expect someone to
follow the current activity and see who is, and isn't, an announced non-player
especially if my earlier conjecture is correct, and voting for someone
counts as an announcement.
I don't think that keeping up with a weeks worth of messages on the public
forum is too ambiguous.
I vote CFJ 3513 as TRUE.
=======================================================================
