Proto-judgement of the matter (regardless of how packaged):
Colloquially, to "vote on a proposal" is to cast a valid ballot for the
Decision to adopt it. As "vote on" is an active verb, it is tied to
the moment of activity (the sending of a vote). In this sense, to vote
FOR is to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR at the time of actual
submission, not the end of the voting period. In other words, voting
"conditionally FOR" is different than voting "FOR". Therefore, the last
person to vote FOR is the last person who does so unconditionally.
If the question were rephrased to "whose ballot was last determined to be
to FOR", then it's important to note that all conditional ballots are
evaluated based on the same, simultaneous conditions at the end of the
voting period[1]. Therefore, if there are multiple conditional votes,
and they all resolve to FOR without such circularity, then no one of
them is the "last" one and the "person whose vote was last determined
to be FOR" does not exist.
[1] If there are multiple conditional ballots, and if the order of
resolution matters (different results if A is evaluated before B versus
B being evaluated before A), then the results are indeterminate (i.e.
impossible to determine as per R2518). Such ballots resolve to
PRESENT due to R2127.
On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> In the interests of clarity, I suggest re-dismissing the CFJ and
> reformulating the language so that it more clearly captures what Gaelan is
> saying. Maybe something like, “If a player votes by endorsing another
> player, and the endorsed player casts a valid vote, then the endorsing
> player’s vote is necessarily later than the endorsed player’s vote.”
>
> I would assign that CFJ to G.
>
> On Mon, Dec 3, 2018 at 1:34 PM Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > This is why the Caller should always provide arguments, because otherwise
> > the judge doesn't know the point of contention (e.g. if it was a question
> > about specific ballots, and not the proposal-language, the arguments should
> > reflect that).
> >
> > I self-file a motion to reconsider this judgement.
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, Gaelan Steele wrote:
> > > Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling.
> > Proposal/decision issue aside, in this situation:
> > >
> > > Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G”
> > > Then G votes “FOR”
> > >
> > > Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does,
> > because e were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR. But
> > another reasonable interpretation would be that I do, because my
> > conditional vote isn’t evaluated until the end of the voting period, so
> > until then I haven’t really voted FOR. This isn’t really addressed in the
> > judgement.
> > >
> > > Gaelan
> > >
> > > > On Dec 3, 2018, at 7:07 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu>
> > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Mon, 3 Dec 2018, D. Margaux wrote:
> > > >> 3691 called by Jacob Arduino 2 December 2018, assigned to G. 2
> > > >> December 2018: "'the last person to vote FOR a proposal' is the last
> > > >> person to submit a ballot regarding that proposal which evaluates to
> > > >> FOR."
> > > >
> > > > I judge CFJ 3691 as follows:
> > > >
> > > > The rules do not describe voting on [or FOR] proposals at all. The
> > > > rules describe voting on "decisions to adopt proposals". To see that
> > > > this is a consequential variation (in terms of technicalities), note
> > > > that a proposal can be part of more than one decision to adopt it
> > (e.g.,
> > > > if it fails quorum).
> > > >
> > > > As part of our long-standing shorthand, people casting votes by
> > > > announcement do so, generally, by stating that they are voting on the
> > > > proposals, not on the decisions to adopt proposals. This is very
> > useful
> > > > shorthand and valid, as there is no ambiguity that their votes refer to
> > > > Decisions. However, if someone wrote actual formal rules text that
> > > > described what happened when someone "voted FOR proposals", it would
> > > > quickly be pointed out that "voting FOR proposals" is not a regulated,
> > > > described action.
> > > >
> > > > So the answer to this question is: it depends. If "the last person to
> > > > vote FOR a proposal" was used colloquially (say within another player's
> > > > conditional vote), this CFJ would be TRUE. If that text was used
> > within
> > > > a Rule, it would be FALSE, as the rules don't map "voting FOR a
> > > > proposal" to "submitting a valid ballot of FOR on the decision to adopt
> > > > the proposal", so that would be referring to some other (perhaps
> > > > non-existent, unregulated, or impossible-to-perform) process.
> > > >
> > > > If the text is contained within a proposal (midway between the
> > formality
> > > > of rules and colloquial shorthand for actions), I think it would err on
> > > > the side of rules text (i.e. it would refer to a non-existent process),
> > > > due to the technical and precise level on which proposals function.
> > > >
> > > > Since the answer to the CFJ is therefore "it depends on context", I
> > > > judge DISMISS (insufficient information).
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> --
> D. Margaux
>
