============================== CFJ 2694 ==============================
If the Chief Whip has caste 1 and 0 rests, then e CAN cast a second
valid vote on an ordinary proposal.
Called by Murphy: 18 Sep 2009 19:56:04 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 18 Sep 2009 20:05:42 GMT
Judged FALSE by ais523: 21 Sep 2009 21:26:04 GMT
According to Rules 2156 and 2255, eir voting limit is 1.5. In the
absence of an explicit rounding clause, I think it doesn't get rounded
at all, and the second vote is invalid because it exceeds the limit.
> 2009/9/18 Ed Murphy :
>> Wooble wrote:
>>> On Thu, Sep 17, 2009 at 8:23 PM, Ed Murphy wrote:
>>>> Wooble wrote:
>>>>>> 6497 O 0 1.0 BobTHJ Advertising Anarchy
>>>>> AGAINST * 2
>>>> Your VLOP is 1 due to coppro's recent Win by Clout.
>>> I'm pretty sure I still have an extra vote as Chief Whip.
>> *checks* No, the round-up clause got lost when it was moved into R2255.
> Now it just says "1.5 times what it would otherwise be" without
> defining rounding procedure, and the standard for 1.5 is that it's
> rounded up to 2. My bad in the latest report, I forgot to change that
> 0 after wooble being Savage before.
> (No CoE needed though, since the GP doesn't really track voting limits)
There is no single obvious standard for rounding non-integers to an
integer value. First, some rules make sense even if no rounding
occurs; Rule 2255 is one such, albeit it was presumably intended to
retain the method used by its predecessors (Rule 2019, versions /22
through /24). Second, even if a rule only makes sense when some
sort of rounding occurs, there are several likely methods:
1) always up
2) always down
3) nearest, always breaking ties up
4) nearest, always breaking ties down
5) nearest, always breaking ties toward odd
6) nearest, always breaking ties toward even
and it's situation-dependent which one is most appropriate (e.g.
Rule 2019/20 and /21 used x1.4 with method #5, /22 through /24
used x1.5 with method #6 with the intent of increasing effective
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I judge CFJ 2694 FALSE. Nothing in the rules implies that voting limits
are necessarily integers, so I conclude that the voting limit in that
situation would be 1.5. As a result, only the first 1.5 votes can be
valid; half a vote is not something that has any relevance in the rules,
so the half-vote has no relevance, and a second full vote will not be
valid either. (Note that this isn't exactly the same as having a voting
limit of 1; if the Chief Whip had 4 rests in the example, e would be
reduced to the next lower caste, and the next lower caste from 1.5 is 1,