On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:48 AM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:

> Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3461
>
> =============================  CFJ 3461  =============================
>
>       I voted PRESENT on proposal 7809.
>
> ======================================================================
>

I agree with the caller's arguments that eir message quoted satisfies each
of the conditions listed in rule 683, and there appears to be no arguments
made to the contrary. The only argument submitted that the ballot was
ineffective was a vague reference to some precedent about announcements,
but a ballot is not made by announcement, so I find it difficult to see how
that would apply directly. Moreover, without a reference to the case and
its reasoning, the precedent is not useful.

The only remaining issue left unaddressed is whether the caller's purported
ballot in fact constituted a notice, as required by 683. If it is not a
notice, it cannot be a valid ballot.

The term "notice" is only used in the rules regarding ballots, initiating
Agoran Decisions, and dependent actions With Notice. Dependent actions
clearly define "With Notice" to have specialized meaning that is clearly
inapplicable in this case, so the only remaining comparison available is in
rule 107, Initiating Agoran Decisions.

Of particular note, Rule 107 requires that a notice initiating an Agoran
decision "[set] forth the intent to initiate the decision." This explicit
requirement to indicate intent is contrasted to Rule 683, which has no such
requirement. It is a rule of interpretation that when something is
mentioned explicitly in one place, its omission in another place means that
it does not apply in the latter case. Thus, no explicit statement of intent
is required for a Rule 683 notice. Without a more precise definition of
"notice" available, and bearing in mind that no explicit statement of
intent is required, I thus conclude that the caller's message indeed
contained a notice for the purposes of Rule 683, and therefore the
statement of the case is true.

The final issue of the case is to assign a valid judgement to the CFJ. My
options, per rule 591, are TRUE, FALSE, and DISMISS. DISMISS is not
appropriate in the circumstances, based on the facts of the case at the
time the CFJ was initiated and the text of rule 591, but the rules
otherwise provide no guidance as to preferring TRUE over FALSE. Thus, I
judge this CFJ FALSE.

-Alexis

Reply via email to