Index ← 2203a CFJ 2203 2204 → text
==============================  CFJ 2203  ==============================

    root cast at least one unretracted vote of AGAINST on Proposal 5707.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 root

Judge:                                  Wooble
Judgement:                              TRUE

Appeal:                                 2203a
Decision:                               OVERRULE/FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by root:                         01 Oct 2008 17:49:01 GMT
Assigned to Wooble:                     02 Oct 2008 06:03:31 GMT
Judged TRUE by Wooble:                  02 Oct 2008 12:38:15 GMT
Appealed by ais523:                     02 Oct 2008 16:55:45 GMT
Appealed by omd:                        02 Oct 2008 17:04:07 GMT
Appealed by ehird:                      07 Oct 2008 20:59:46 GMT
Appeal 2203a:                           07 Oct 2008 20:59:46 GMT
OVERRULED to FALSE on Appeal:           29 Oct 2008 19:32:50 GMT

========================================================================

Caller's Arguments:

The statement by which root attempted to vote on Proposal 5707 was "I
vote SELL(5 VP - AGAINST) x 3."  Per section 13 of the vote market
agreement, "A vote of SELL(X - Y) on an Agoran decision is equivalent
to posting a Sell Ticket with a cost of X and voting to endorse the
filler of that ticket, or in the case the ticket is not filled, voting
Y."  Thus, a vote of SELL(5 VP - AGAINST) is equivalent to posting a
Sell Ticket with a cost of 5 VP and voting to endorse the filler of
that ticket.  By game custom, "SELL(5 VP - AGAINST) x 3" is therefore
equivalent to posting 3 such Sell Tickets and voting to endorse the
filler of each.  None of these tickets were filled, so the actual vote
cast in each of these was the default vote of AGAINST.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:

An excerpt from Rule 2172:
{{{
      The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
      if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
      condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
      or paradox, from information published within the voting period.
}}}
The text of the contract that defined the options was not published during the
voting period, and rule 2172 does not make an allowance for text published
/before/ the voting period.

========================================================================

Gratuitous Evidence by Murphy:

Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700  Voting period of Proposal 5707 begins
Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:13:41 -0600  Vote Market text published
Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:21:26 -0700  Voting period of Proposal 5707 ends

========================================================================

Judge Wooble's Arguments:

I judge TRUE.  Recent game custom holds that we accept
contract-defined "SELL" votes as having the meaning given to them by
the Vote Market contract.  Since such a vote is defined neither by the
rules nor by another public contract, and since the text of the Vote
Market agreement is published on a regular basis where all of the
players have a reasonable expectation of being aware of its content
(and, in particular, the Assessor has demonstrated that e's aware of
its content), a SELL vote unambiguously casts a vote conditionally
endorsing the filler of the sell ticket created by the contract's
mechanisms upon the vote being cast, and conditionally AGAINST in this
case if the ticket is not filled.  In this case, root succeeded in
casting 3 such conditional votes, at least one of which was valid
regardless of whether P5707 was Democratic.

========================================================================

Appellant ais523's Arguments:

The judgement looked
reasonable at the time, but various doubts have come up since which I
think need looking at. Rule 754 is probably the best argument as to what
is allowed, because it sets it out explicitly: (1) typos, dialects, and
abbreviations that do not cause ambiguity; (2) Rule-defined terms; (3)
mathematical and legal terms; (4) standard English. Note, specifically,
that this does not include contracts. The only clause of rule 754 that
seems to allow a vote of SELL at all is part (1), which allows
unambiguous abbreviations. SELL is certainly an abbreviation, but I
seriously doubt that it is unambiguous (especially as Murphy, BobTHJ and
me put one interpretation on what the vote meant, but root put another
interpretation on it). Rule 754 specifically does not allow ambiguous
abbreviations, so the vote failed.

I agree with Wooble that SELL (5VP - AGAINST) probably works, due to it
being an abbreviation whose expansion is well-known and repeatedly
published. (Note, however, that it is not certain that the Assessor
understood it correctly; Murphy recently admitted to treating unfilled
tickets as no-vote rather than PRESENT.) However, "SELL (5VP - AGAINST)
x 3" (I can't remember the exact spacing, but I think it was something
like that) isn't explicitly contract-defined, and from discussions in
a-d it is relatively clear that there is more than one plausible
interpretation of it, thus it is an ambiguous abbreviation.

========================================================================