We evaluate votes at the time they are cast (iirc, unless we added future conditionals back in). This vote, under the circumstances, was a conditional with sufficient context within the game state. If somebody made a vote like this without any previous context, it may be ambiguous. Under these circumstances, the vote is trivially evaluable. And when the vote, as soon as it is cast, evaluates as FOR, a future user or any number of them could make similar conditionals counting on this vote as a FOR. Ambiguity is situational and a vote with this vote's text could be ambiguous at time (say, if one of the previous five voters voted AGAINST) but it's clear in this case that any reasonable reader of text would evaluate this as FOR when cast.
On Mon, Jun 25, 2018 at 9:32 AM, Alex Smith <ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote: > On Mon, 2018-06-25 at 09:22 +1000, Rebecca wrote: >> Corona voted in this way >> "> I vote on these proposals in such a manner that, in a hypothetical >> > alternate gamestate identical to the current one except for me never >> > sending the message immediately before this one, and this message not >> > containing the withdrawal of my earlier vote, in case that in the next >> > instant, before any other process regulated by the ruleset of Agora takes >> > place, a player would respond to this thread with the message "I do the >> > same as the last six people in this thread", their vote on all of these >> > proposals would evaluate to FOR all of the aforementioned proposals." >> >> The question presented is whether this conditional vote evaluates FOR >> each proposal, where the previous five votes were FOR each proposal. I >> hold that it does. The intent of the conditional is clear. It wants to >> vote in such a way that if someone else voted the same as the previous >> voters including this one, they would vote FOR. That's basically the >> same thing as saying that Corona voted in the same way as five >> previous voters on the proposals, which is FOR. This text is not >> ambiguous, in that its aim is clear and no reasonable Agoran reading >> carefully over it would believe it to be anything but a vote FOR each >> proposal. The conditional is not inextricable, as the condition >> depends on one clearly defined occurrence with no intervening rules >> processes. >> >> This CFJ is TRUE > > I'm disappointed that you didn't at least address my arguments. A > direct vote clearly isn't equivalent to the conditional, because if > every eligible voter made the conditional, it would break down at some > point. Thus, if a future eligible voter tries to do the same as the > previous users, their action will fail due to ambiguity as it's trying > to do the same thing as each of two non-equivalent actions. > > -- > ais523 -- >From V.J. Rada
