I have put together my judgement for CFJ 3860 [assuming that is the
number it will be assigned by the CotC]. I am mainly publishing this as
a draft and not an official judgement because I want to wait for
confirmation that it is actually CFJ 3860. Unless someone finds a major
issue with my logic, I will leave the judgement as is.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
=========== CFJ: “G. cast a valid ballot on Proposal 8458.” ============
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Judge's Arguments:
tl;dr: Hiding a ballot 500 lines into a report with no indication that
there's a ballot there is not very "clear". FALSE.
In the message in question, G. attempted to vote on Proposal 8458. E
quoted the (very long) Herald's report, with the following text on lines
574-576:
This is a break in the quoted portion of this message.
I, G., vote FOR the referendum on Proposal Eight Four Five Eight.
You are now returned to the quoted portion of this message.
It was clearly intended to be hidden so as to not be noticed by the
average player. The message also contained an obvious Notice of Honour
at the top. Unless a player is suspecting something, e would likely see
that and assume there were no other actions in the message.
As per the caller's arguments and prior discussion, this obviously does
not constitute a conspicuous attempt at voting. The question, then, is
whether it is "clear." In fact, this is really the only question
involved, as the Agoran rules for submitting a ballot do not actually
use the word "conspicuous." The conditions for publishing a valid
ballot, from rule 683, are as follows:
1. The ballot is submitted during the voting period for the
decision.
2. The entity casting the ballot (the voter) was, at the
initiation of the decision, a player.
3. The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.
4. The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by
the voting method.
5. The ballot clearly sets forth the voter's intent to place
the identified vote.
6. The voter has no other valid ballots on the same decision.
#1-#4 and #6 are all satisfied without question. The issue is #5. Did G.
clearly set forth eir intent to place the identified vote?
This comes down to the definition of "clear" again. From the caller's
arguments:
"For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is:
1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for
players to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a
ballot."
The message certainly did try to make it hard for players to perceive
it. One could disagree with the second half of the statement, as it is
easy to understand and interpret that it was a ballot - but only if it
is perceived. Let us look at another definition of clear.
Merriam-Webster defines "clear" the following way:
3a : easily heard
"a loud and clear sound"
b : easily visible : plain
"a clear signal"
c : free from obscurity or ambiguity : easily understood : unmistakable
"a clear explanation"
The ballot is certainly not easily visible or plain. It is not free from
obscurity, nor is it unmistakable. Even if you were to disagree and
claim that the ballot complies with some parts of or some definitions of
clear, one would agree that does not satisfy enough of the definition to
truly be clear.
Concerning the second piece of evidence provider by the caller (see
below): I would say that it is over-exaggerating the situation somewhat,
but it gets the point across. A notice, however clear the notice itself
may be, if it is hidden in an obscure place, does not do much good at
all. If Arthur had said, somewhere visible to all, "hey, I put a notice
on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused
lavatory with a sign on the door saying 'Beware of the Leopard,'" though
it would be inconvenient, the notice would have still been useful.
Likewise, if G. had placed a piece of text near the top of the message
saying something to the effect of "there is a ballot lower down in this
message," then despite the text being hidden, it would be easily
understood that one should look there, therefore it would be clear.
However, e made no such mention (that would have defeated the purpose of
eir ballot).
Therefore, I find CFJ 3860 to be FALSE.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caller's Arguments:
Although “clear and conspicuous” is a common legal term, I consider it
at least
partly a legal doublet, like “null and void”. It may be possible to be
conspicuous without being clear, but it is much more questionable whether
something can be clear without being conspicuous.
For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is:
1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret.
However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for
players
to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a ballot.
Evidence (1):
https://mailman.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2020-June/043813.html
Evidence (2):
“Oh, yes, well as soon as I heard I went straight round to see them,
yesterday afternoon. You hadn't exactly gone out of your way to call
attention to them, had you? I mean like actually telling anybody or
anything.”
“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of
a locked
filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door
saying
‘Beware of the Leopard.”
--
ATMunn
friendly neighborhood notary here :)
