============================== CFJ 2396 ==============================
A conditional vote which would be clearly identify an option as
defined by R2127 would clearly identify an option for the purposes
of satisfying Rule 683(c).
Called by G.: 02 Mar 2009 18:33:12 GMT
Assigned to Murphy: 05 Mar 2009 07:07:11 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy: 12 Mar 2009 22:58:43 GMT
Some history is needed here. Conditional Votes, as implemented by
Rule 2127 (power=1), did an end run around Rule 683 (power=3) by
specifically defining "clearly identified" to include conditionals.
At the time, the author of the current form of Rule 683 (Maud) noted
that (IIRC) it was against common definition or common sense uses of
"clearly identified" to include conditionals, and that e clearly did
*not* intend to allow conditional voting when e wrote Rule 683 (the
wording of which is essentially unchanged from that time).
Now, Rule 754 has been specifically re-written to give higher-
powered common definitions more credence then lower-powered rules
definitions, specifically to prevent such end runs. Also, there
has been some more recent case precedents around "unambiguous" and
"clear" (e.g. with respect to dependent actions) which seem to say
that clear means very clear indeed. So, currently, does the
"guidance" provided by lower-powered R2127 successfully define
a clear vote as including conditionals?
Judge Murphy's Arguments:
R2127's definition reasonably fits within the scope of the
ordinary-language definition of "clear"; in particular, by the time the
vote collector resolves the decision, a conditional vote clearly
identifies an option (or else R2127 also rejects it). R754(d) is
intended to restrict sweeping re-definitions such as "to 'repeal' a
rule is to paint it black", not things like R2127 that were previously
generally accepted as working for a long time in a non-scam context.
CFJs 1302 and 1307 differed in that IIRC there was no rule, not even a
low-Power one, claiming that conditional actions were valid.