Index ← 2109 CFJ 2110 2111 → text
==============================  CFJ 2110  ==============================

    At least two of the valid votes on Proposal 5648 were cast by the
    same player.


Caller:                                 Murphy

Judge:                                  Quazie

Judge:                                  ais523
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Murphy:                       23 Jul 2008 01:16:57 GMT
Assigned to Quazie:                     27 Jul 2008 22:40:23 GMT
Quazie recused:                         13 Aug 2008 23:27:26 GMT
Assigned to ais523:                     15 Aug 2008 07:01:47 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523:                 15 Aug 2008 19:58:10 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

Assuming that tusho is not a player (CFJ 2074), Proposal 5648 was not
made democratic until after the end of the voting period.  Rule 2142
allows this, but what does it do to vote validity?


Gratuitous Arguments by G.:

R683 strongly implies that a vote is valid if it is among the first N where
N<= the voting limit when the vote is submitted.  This points to a dangerous
break in the rule allowing democratization during the voting period, in that
Ordinary votes cast before the democratization would remain valid even after
the democratization.


Gratuitous Arguments by root:

      Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the
      first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the
      entity's voting limit on that decision.

I don't see anything in there that implies "when the vote is cast"
timing.  It talks about the collective validity of votes which could
have been cast at different times, not the validity of individual

In fact, condition (d) strongly implies that vote validity is a status
that is evaluated instantaneously, not set in stone when the vote was
cast -- otherwise, retracting a vote would fail to invalidate it.


Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

I spotted this scam ages ago, and filed CFJs 1959 and 1960 to determine
whether it would work. The verdict is that it wouldn't, so I didn't try
it. (I certainly would have tried it otherwise.)


Judge ais523's Arguments:

At the time the CFJ was called, its statement was FALSE. Vote validity
is evaluated instantaneously (see root's gratuitous arguments and CFJs
1959 and 1960), and at the time the CFJ was called the Agoran Decision
about the proposal in question was Democratic, therefore the same player
cannot possibly have more than one valid vote on it. (The statement was
true earlier, during the voting period for instance, but was false at
the time the CFJ was called).