============================== CFJ 2802 ==============================
If Wooble had been Red when e attempted to vote on the decision
whether to adopt Proposal 6727, then eir vote would have been
ineffective as of the end of the voting period.
Called by Murphy: 25 May 2010 17:05:55 GMT
Assigned to scshunt: 06 Jun 2010 21:01:19 GMT
scshunt recused: 20 Jun 2010 15:49:39 GMT
Assigned to ais523: 20 Jun 2010 15:52:30 GMT
Judged UNDETERMINED by ais523: 20 Jun 2010 19:40:15 GMT
This depends on whether Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes) measures voting
limit at time of voting / end of voting period / time of resolution,
and possibly whether Rule 1950 (Voting on Democratic Decisions)
applies to the entire voting period of a period that becomes
democratic during that period.
Rule 2280/0 (Power=3)
When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast
ballots without explicitly specifying the number of ballots to
be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3"), e casts a
number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that decision.
Rule 1950/20 (Power=3)
Voting on Democratic Decisions
The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities
that were active first-class players at the start of its voting
period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic
decision is one.
Judge ais523's Arguments:
I see no reason to conclude that rule 2280 measures anything but voting
limit at the time the vote is made; the plain language of the rule
doesn't create a conditional vote that counts a different number of
times (which is dubious anyway), but merely multiple votes. Rule 1950
doesn't apply retroactively (because rule 2280 cares about the voting
limit at the time the vote was made, it also cares about the
ordinary/democraticness at the time the vote was made). Thus Wooble cast
I judge CFJ 2802 UNDETERMINED; "eir vote" would have no referent in such
a situation, and I can't reasonably reason about whether a nonexistent
vote is effective or not.