I've considered it more since our last conversation, and I agree that it
definitely meets reasonable effort standards whenever the previous vote was
reported in an assessor's results (which would be the case most times this
would be used), so I don't think I'd opine against in on those grounds.
On Wed, 26 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> Basically, I just don't see anything that justifies such a harsh
> viewpoint. There's a big difference between those examples and looking
> up one vote on one decision, information available easily in the
> resolution message. You'd basically be banning any conditional that
> depends on anything a noticeable distance in the past, no matter how
> easy the data is to find. I agree that people should only have to make
> a reasonable effort, but I don't see anything unreasonable about
> looking up a vote on a relatively recent decision.
>
> -Aris
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 23, 2018 at 9:03 PM Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Sun, 23 Sep 2018, Aris Merchant wrote:
> > > I object. You’ve just stated that you have a strong personal opinion.
> >
> > Whether or not I judge this, I'm open to discussion and changing my first
> > impression.
> >
> > (Obviously I can't make you not object, but using "expressing an opinion"
> > as a reason suppresses dialog - would it have been better if I'd just
> > favored it while keeping quiet about my current leanings? "Having an
> > opinion" is not the same thing as being self-interested or otherwise
> > incapable of a fair judgement). Anyway, some discussion...
> >
> > > Additionally, I found that CFJ. It’s CFJ 1214. It states pretty strongly
> > > that this kind of thing was allowed at the time, although admittedly that
> > > depends on details of how Orders worked under those rules.
> >
> > I'll counter with 2 CFJs:
> > - CFJ 1307, which found that when things must be "specified", using
> > references like "all" or other indirections does not sufficiently "specify".
> > Obviously we've let that one slip (a lot) such that custom has superseded
> > that precedent, but it's still a precedent.
> >
> > - CFJ 3659, with a more stringent interpretation of "clearly" than we've
> > had in the past, noting R683 uses "clearly" for ballots.
> >
> > And for this question:
> > > How is this different legally from the conditional vote “FOR if I voted
> > > FOR
> > > last time, AGAINST if I voted against, otherwise PRESENT”? What legal
> > > reasoning makes that kind of vote illegal when similar votes are not
> > > illegal?
> >
> > Rule 2517 says that conditionals can't be "unreasonably difficult" to
> > determine. That's the legal reasoning. The question is, where does that
> > line lie?
> >
> > In CFJ 1460, Judge Maud gives of "unreasonable effort" that's along the
> > lines of your idea:
> > > I cast a number of votes for proposal "Zig-Zag Lemma" equal to the
> > > number of times since 1996 that Michael and Kelly have voted with
> > > equal strength on a proposal using at least five but not more than
> > > forty of the words in a proposal from 1995.
> > Now, Judge Maud here chose an example that was exaggeratedly unreasonable
> > to make a point, but it's along the same lines. The question is, where
> > is that line drawn?
> >
> > Let me say I'm not certain: I'm currently *skeptical* that your clause
> > is reasonable, but I'm willing to consider carefully before trying to
> > draw that line.
> >
> >
>
