=============================== CFJ 3565 ===============================
In the below quoted message, VJ Rada endorsed G.
Called by Ørjan: 25 Sep 2017 23:38:31
Assigned to o: 27 Sep 2017 23:44:53
Judged FALSE by o: 04 Oct 2017 00:04:58
Argument: Rule 2127 states
Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
It seems to me that VJ Radas votes are equivalent to what's stated in
the last part of that, and thus are endorsements.
Judge o's Arguments:
V.J Rada cast a vote which read
> I vote as G. does.
The rule that defines endorsement is rule 2127 (“Conditional Votes”), the
relevant part of which reads:
> Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally
casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if any)
among that voter's valid votes on that decision.
This defines an equivalence relationship between a class of conditional
votes and the notation that a vote endorses another voter. The two are, by
definition, interchangeable: if, in every possible outcome, a conditional
vote is identical to the vote of a specific other voter, and the identity
of that voter can be ascertained from the text of the vote, then it is
exactly the same in every respect as a vote which endorses that player.
Under this interpretation, V.J Rada’s ballot endorsed G.. This is the
interpretation I personally favour.
However, it is also possible to read V.J Rada’s ballot as a vote for the
same options G. had selected at that moment (and which V.J Rada included
by quotation in eir own message casting the ballot). This appears to be
V.J Rada’s intention, as, when questions were originally raised about the
validity of eir ballot, V.J Rada submitted a new ballot which was not
conditional in any way: e voted FOR all of the named proposals, directly.
GIven the ambiguity, I find that V.J Rada’s original ballot, “I vote as G.
does,” does not meet the requirement set out in rule 683 (“Voting on
Agoran Decisions”) that
> The ballot clearly identifies a valid vote, as determined by the voting
Therefore, it is not a conditional ballot of any kind, and did not endorse
G., even under the equivalence properties described above. I find this CFJ
to be FALSE.