The one question I have is—how is the “reiteration” definition consistent with the interpretation of “clear” set forth in the recent CFJ on the attempted declaration of apathy?
I think the “reiterate” language involves indirection that is similar to the indirection involved in the apathy declaration. I suppose a potential distinction is that intents must be “clear and _unambiguous_,” but the intent to declare apathy was unambiguous. It is strange that the addition of an “unambiguous” requirement can prevent an unambiguous intent from being effective. Perhaps as Aris says in the judgement, “clear” must mean something additional to “unambiguous,” but I don’t necessarily agree with that. After all, common language (especially in legal contexts) often uses doublets that have duplicative meanings: “fit and proper,” “terms and conditions,” “aid and abet,” “ways and means,” “all and sundry,” “depose and say,” etc. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_doublet My view is that “clear and unambiguous” is a similar doublet, where the meaning of the two terms is basically identical. I’ve been considering moving for reconsideration of the apathy CFJ on this ground, but haven’t had the time. In any case, perhaps it’s worth some more thought and discussion... On Wed, Sep 26, 2018 at 4:10 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I've considered it more since our last conversation, and I agree that it > definitely meets reasonable effort standards whenever the previous vote was > reported in an assessor's results (which would be the case most times this > would be used), so I don't think I'd opine against in on those grounds. > > On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote: > > 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. > > > > > > > > > -- D. Margaux
