============================== CFJ 2270 ==============================
Neither Proposal 5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.
Called by Murphy: 17 Nov 2008 00:50:43 GMT
Assigned to root: 17 Nov 2008 09:23:02 GMT
root recused: 02 Dec 2008 07:41:32 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 02 Dec 2008 07:43:27 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 08 Dec 2008 11:36:33 GMT
Rule 2156 purports to define an eligible voter's voting limit, not
merely eir initial or base voting limit. Thus, after Rule 2126
increased ehird's voting limit, Rule 2156 reasserted itself and
reset it to eir caste. Thus, the resolutions were ineffective
because they mis-reported ehird's valid votes.
Of course, this should be fixed so that Rule 2126's method works
in some sort of useful method. It should probably also be limited
to the first four days of a proposal's voting period, to allow time
for scams to be countered by democratization.
Rule 2126 (Notes), relevant excerpt
(7) A player CAN spend one Note to increase another player's
voting limit on an ordinary proposal whose voting period is
in progress by 1.
Rule 2156 (Voting on Ordinary Decisions), relevant excerpt
The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary decision is
eir caste at the start of its voting period, or half that (rounded
up) if the voter was in the chokey at that time.
Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:
Strong precedent is that one-off increases work.
Gratuitous Arguments by Murphy:
What strong precedent? I don't remember that clause being invoked
even once (until now) since it was enacted.
Gratuitous Arguments by ehird:
Well, the precedent caused by it being voted in with that intention? Just
Anyway I think that the definition of voting limit is an
_initialization_ and thus
it can be increased.
Just my 2c.
Gratuitous Arguments by ais523:
The only meaningful interpretation of an "increase in voting limit" here
is something that causes the voting limit to be higher than it would
otherwise be; applying an increase in voting limit to a player means
they have more votes than their caste would suggest. This conflicts rule
2156, but rule 2126 takes precedence.
Also, appellant argument in CFJ 2196b: "Obviously it is preferable for a
phrase in the rules to mean something than to mean nothing." Personally
I disagree with this and think that rules actually mean nothing by
default, but as the Judge there agreed with the appellants with no
apparent controversy it seems reasonable that game custom suggests that
a rule does mean something by default.
Gratuitous Arguments by G.:
R2156, in defining that a voting limit *is* a caste level (as opposed
to saying "is set to" a caste level) constitutes a whole and complete
definition of a particular voting limit. As a definition, R2156 governs
the properties of the voting limit that are possible to exist (R1586)--
it is no more possible to set a voting level to deviate from a player's
caste than it would be possible to set a voting limit to be a chunk of
green cheese. Such a definition constitutes an implicit claim of
precedence for the purposes of R1030. Since R2156 and R2126 are of the
same power, and R2126 does not itself claim to have greater precedence,
this claim should be sufficient to establish R2156's authority in the
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge FALSE on CFJ 2270 (i.e. it is NOT true that "Neither Proposal
5956 nor Proposal 5962 has been adopted.", because one of them was),
based on the protoprecedent of CFJ 2276a. (In other words, I judge here
that proposal 5956 was adopted, for the same reasons that I attempted to
judge in CFJ 2276a that proposal 5956 was adopted.)