Re: DIS: Re: BUS: CFJ 3647 judged FALSE

[Publius Scribonius Scholasticus]

It also invalidates Trigon's vote. When I was writing the CFJ, I read
the vote as being ambiguous about how changes to the other people's
votes would affect the caster's vote, but now reading it, I am finding
it unambiguous, so I would be happy to motion to reconsider, if others
are also confused.
On Sun, Jul 1, 2018 at 2:51 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> Ok I found ATMunn's attempt to re-vote, so what I'm not sure of is how
> this applies to Trigon's vote which is below.  Basically I don't get
> the logic of CFJ 3647 on how/why ATMunn's vote could be "conditional"
> because it seems pretty unconditional to me - so I can't see how the
> logic chain extrapolates to Trigon.
>
> Trigon wrote:
> > I do the same as the last four people in this thread.
> >
> > On Sat, Jun 23, 2018, 09:09 ATMunn <iamingodsarmy at gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > I do the same as the last three people in this thread.
> > >
> > > On 6/23/2018 6:14 AM, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote:
> > > > I also vote FOR proposals 8053-8057.
> > > >
> > > > -twg
>
> On Sun, 1 Jul 2018, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> > As assessor, this judgement leaves me woefully confused as it does
> > not appear to be any kind of conditional vote and I'm not going
> > to go digging for the cited discussion.  Does this invalidate just
> > ATMunn's vote, or ATMunn's and Trigon's, or what?  (I know Corona's
> > is settled in a different CFJ).
> >
> > On Tue, 26 Jun 2018, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote:
> > > Oyez! Oyez! Oyez! The court delivers below a verdict on CFJ 3647,
> > > called by The Honourable ATMunn.
> > >
> > > The case before the court today raises only a question of law. The
> > > case asks specifically whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote evaluates
> > > to FOR, but generally whether shorthands are effective in taking
> > > actions. In CFJ 3523, The Victorious and Honourable Aris addressed a
> > > related question. In CFJ 3523, the court was faced with a question of
> > > whether a statement, such as "i sent this to the wrong place" would
> > > have the effect of taking those actions that appeared in a quoted
> > > message. The Victorious and Honourable Aris, in recognition of
> > > existing and well-established shorthands, found that it was effective
> > > because it was unambigous and could not be reasonably misunderstood in
> > > the context. The court believes that this same standard would
> > > logically extend to explicit shorthands, such as that before the court
> > > today. Additionally, game custom supports this. Shorthands, such as "I
> > > do the same" or "I do the opposite" have often been accepted without
> > > question.
> > >
> > > Now, the court must consider whether The Honourable ATMunn's vote
> > > fulfilled the standard found above. The court finds that it does not
> > > because the vote remains ambiguous as to whether the caster is voting
> > > as the previous voters have done at the time of casting or the caster
> > > is casting a conditional vote that will evaluate to whatever the vote
> > > of the previous voters is at the time of resolution, therefore the
> > > court judges the statement "Before the sending of this message, ATMunn
> > > voted FOR proposal 8053." FALSE.
> > >
> > > References and Evidence:
> > > Discussion of CFJ 3646 between The Honourable twg and The Victorious and
> > >     Right Learned ais523
> > > CFJ 3523
> > >
> >
> >
>