On Wed, Jan 1, 2014 at 6:21 PM, Alex Smith <ais...@bham.ac.uk> wrote: > Except it isn't set up as a vote. For instance, things like withdrawing > objections are possible
You can withdraw votes too. Remember when dependent actions used to be Agoran decisions? It matched up decently well except for the boilerplate. I agree with the notion that the rule clearly allows someone to both support and object (btw, I don't think this was ever amended away). I don't find this entirely nonsensical, as we regularly allow voting both FOR and AGAINST on other decisions, though the mechanism is somewhat different. But even if it were nonsensical, I draw a distinction between the rules being specific and vague. In this case, the mechanism is clearly written as if in a computer program, so even if some nonsensical concepts fall out, the text of the rules takes precedence. But that doesn't mean that I can't handle the mechanism not being clearly written out, or that if it weren't I would choose the most vexing interpretation of every phrase to try to get an advantage (well, I might try on occasion, but I wouldn't be surprised to be shot down), so I'm often in favor of simplification. Also, I think that in some sense, we already have a way to bury legalese in a separate document: judgements themselves. This has pros and cons compared to actual binding text - judgements can get stale relatively easily, are harder to search, and have a habit of becoming contradictory, but don't need to be explicitly updated when the precise mechanisms in the rules change - but I think the CFJ system in general has been neglected of late.
