On Thu, 15 Sep 2016, Alexis Hunt wrote: > On Thu, Sep 15, 2016 at 12:48 AM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > Detail: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/3461 > > ============================= CFJ 3461 ============================= > > I voted PRESENT on proposal 7809. > > ====================================================================== > > Caller: ais523 > > Judge: Alexis > Judgement: > > > I'll let this sit until Saturday for arguments.
I'm vaguely remembering a precedent that said "an announcement clearly for one thing is not to be interpreted as an announcement for something else". For example, it's pretty clear that people reply to a Proposal distribution with a single word like this, and it works, or at least it hasn't been questioned: > [From Promotor's message] Proposal XXXX FOR however, not every instance of the word FOR is taken as a vote, in particular, if context is placed around it (like ais523's sentence) it disqualifies it from being the vote, as it clearly not a notice for voting but rather something else. [I'm playing Devil's advocate here with a vague memory of a precedent, in case someone else remembers it too; I'm not particularly convinced with my argument, and that ballot rule definitely needs a fix].
