============================== CFJ 1961 ==============================
Proposal A is distributed and is filibustered (and remains
filibustered) during emergency session; given no rule changes, a
week and a day later, a vote cast on it may be valid.
Called by G.: 20 May 2008 11:13:01 GMT
Assigned to Pavitra: 22 May 2008 03:34:52 GMT
Judged TRUE by Pavitra: 26 May 2008 22:20:41 GMT
R2168 and R2177 create a loop of voting period ended -> filibuster ->
quorum high -> voting period didn't end -> quorum not high -> voting
period ended -> ... making it undecidable whether any vote cast on it
would be valid.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
That doesn't seem undecidable; when two rules contradict, one takes
precedence. The contradiction here is not of the usual sort, but the
fact that you've shown a loop means that a contradiction does exist.
Contradictions should be broken in favour of the higher-power or
lower-numbered rule; I don't think you've created a paradox here.
Judge Pavitra's Arguments:
R2168 requires only that the result "would be FAILED QUORUM" if the
voting period actually ended at that time, not that the number of
distinct voters who submitted valid ballots continues to be less than
quorum after the voting period is extended.
If the caller's logic were valid, we would have to consider that R2168
was paradoxical in itself, without the filibuster rules, because by the
same reasoning, period ended -> length doubled -> period not ended ->
length not doubled -> period ended -> ... making it undecidable whether
R2168 ever actually works at all.
Fortunately, this is not the case; the wording "would end" and "would
be FAILED QUORUM" create an insulating buffer of subjunctivity.
Judge Pavitra's Evidence:
A proposal that ends its voting period in filibuster has a
quorum of the number of eligible voters plus 1, rules to the
Whenever the voting period of an Agoran decision would end, and
the result would be FAILED QUORUM, the length of the voting
period for that decision will immediately be doubled, provided
this has not already happened for the decision in question.