============================== CFJ 1292 ==============================
Kelly cast a nonzero number of Votes on Proposal 4139.
Called by Kelly: 04 May 2001 02:49:04 GMT
Assigned to Oerjan: 04 May 2001 07:56:41 GMT
Judged FALSE by Oerjan: 10 May 2001 12:43:26 GMT
Judgement distributed: 11 May 2001 02:13:01 GMT
Appealed by Maud: 12 May 2001 01:00:56 GMT
From: Kelly Martin
Subject: BUS: Stirring the pot...
Date: Wed, 4 Apr 2001 11:05:22 -0500
I cast one half of one vote AGAINST Proposal 4139.
Judge Oerjan's Arguments:
Having recently suggested a Proto to make it possible to cast Votes in
non-integral amounts, I am now being asked to determine whether this is
already possible under the current Rules.
First, I quote from Rule 754/4:
Except when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any
mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its
standard mathematical meaning. In particular, "number" shall
mean "real number".
In other words, numbers must be taken to allow non-integral amounts unless
explicitly indicated otherwise. This means that a "number of Votes" need
not be integral without further restriction.
For Currencies, their numbers are restricted to be integral multiples of
their MUQ; however, the MUQ itself need not be integral. Thus, we
already have custom in Agora for using number of something in a
non-integral sense. In particular, and in analogy with MUQ < 1
Currencies, the use of the plural "Votes" should not by itself be taken to
imply that the Votes in question need be an integral number.
I quote from Rule 1950/1:
An entity may cast as many votes as e wishes on a Proposal, up
to the limit determined by that entity's Voting Power on
that Proposal, with the exception that no Player may vote on an
Ordinary Proposal unless e is an Oligarch at the time e casts
eir vote. An entity may cast its votes in any combination e
This seems to indicate full freedom in the use of non-integral votes.
On the other hand, there are some Rules (regarding Proposals as opposed to
other Issues) that use the phrase "a Vote", "one [...] Vote", or
683/9 (Voting on Proposals), Rule 1715/6 (Announcing One's Presence), Rule
955/5 (Votes Required to Adopt a Proposal) and Rule 1980/0 (Becoming
I find the uses of "one [...] Vote" in Rule 955 and Rule 1980 to be
harmless, as they are clearly indicated to be minimum amount requirements.
The word "counted" is also used non-integrally about time in Rule 1599/6
(Overdue Debts), and it seems to me that this is fairly standard in the
meaning of "accounted for" which is a reasonable interpretation in the
case of Rule 955.
It therefore remains the uses of "a Vote" in Rule 683 and Rule 1715:
Rule 683/9 (Power=1)
Voting on Proposals
A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do
so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is
casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or
cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be
cancelled as other Rules require.
A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN
(or an obvious synonym of one of these). Something which is not
one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.
A vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor
is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.
Rule 1715/6 (Power=1)
Announcing One's Presence
A Player may declare that e is PRESENT on an Issue which is not
an Ordinary Proposal by sending a message to that effect to the
Issue's Vote Collector. Solely for the purpose of determining
Quorum, this Player is considered to have voted on that Issue.
If e also casts a Vote on that Issue, e is counted only once
I feel that the uses in Rule 683 especially count as indication that Votes
have to be multiples of single ones. Searching the Rules for instances of
"a[n] Papyrus/Indulgence/VE/Voting Entitlement", I can find no obvious
analogical examples that could contradict this - while the Auctions
clearly require integral amounts, the phrasing used is "individual
After I protoed the above, Crito disagreed with my reasoning so far, and I
While I think it is true that, within the context of our rules,
one must interpret "a Vote" or "the Vote" as a single, integral
Vote, I don't think that helps much. I think this CFJ turns on
the intrepretation of "votes" (plural form).
I still stand by my reasoning, but wish to clarify it. I take Rule 683 to
establish some very fundamental properties of Proposal Votes (that they
cannot generally be changed, and that they must be FOR, AGAINST or
ABSTAIN.) However, since it speaks only of "a Vote" in these
circumstances, it cannot apply to fractional Votes, and moreover it has
always been interpreted as allowing e.g. 2 Votes by the same Player to be
Therefore, Rule 683 requires, perhaps only implicitly, that Votes be
divisible into units. I do not think this conflicts with Rule 1950, which
does not use the ill-fated word "number" (ill-fated, I believe, since it
is defined as being a real number rather than leaving the interpretation
up to more common sense, and referring to a dubiously existent similar
custom in mathematics) but instead "many", which can easily be interpreted
I therefore enter a Judgement of FALSE.