Basically, I just don't see anything that justifies such a harsh viewpoint. There's a big difference between those examples and looking up one vote on one decision, information available easily in the resolution message. You'd basically be banning any conditional that depends on anything a noticeable distance in the past, no matter how easy the data is to find. I agree that people should only have to make a reasonable effort, but I don't see anything unreasonable about looking up a vote on a relatively recent decision.
-Aris On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:03 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion. > > Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first > impression. > > (Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion" > as a reason suppresses dialog - would it have been better if I'd just > favored it while keeping quiet about my current leanings? "Having an > opinion" is not the same thing as being self-interested or otherwise > incapable of a fair judgement). Anyway, some discussion... > > > Additionally, I found that CFJ. It’s CFJ 1214. It states pretty strongly > > that this kind of thing was allowed at the time, although admittedly that > > depends on details of how Orders worked under those rules. > > I'll counter with 2 CFJs: > - CFJ 1307, which found that when things must be "specified", using > references like "all" or other indirections does not sufficiently "specify". > Obviously we've let that one slip (a lot) such that custom has superseded > that precedent, but it's still a precedent. > > - CFJ 3659, with a more stringent interpretation of "clearly" than we've > had in the past, noting R683 uses "clearly" for ballots. > > And for this question: > > How is this different legally from the conditional vote “FOR if I voted FOR > > last time, AGAINST if I voted against, otherwise PRESENT”? What legal > > reasoning makes that kind of vote illegal when similar votes are not > > illegal? > > Rule 2517 says that conditionals can't be "unreasonably difficult" to > determine. That's the legal reasoning. The question is, where does that > line lie? > > In CFJ 1460, Judge Maud gives of "unreasonable effort" that's along the > lines of your idea: > > I cast a number of votes for proposal "Zig-Zag Lemma" equal to the > > number of times since 1996 that Michael and Kelly have voted with > > equal strength on a proposal using at least five but not more than > > forty of the words in a proposal from 1995. > Now, Judge Maud here chose an example that was exaggeratedly unreasonable > to make a point, but it's along the same lines. The question is, where > is that line drawn? > > Let me say I'm not certain: I'm currently *skeptical* that your clause > is reasonable, but I'm willing to consider carefully before trying to > draw that line. > >
