On 7/1/2020 8:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > On Wed, Jul 1, 2020 at 8:00 PM Jason Cobb wrote: >>> CoE: This resolution is invalid because the decision was already resolved >>> the previous time, because G.’s vote was invalid, because it did not >>> “clearly set[] forth the voter’s intent to place the identified vote”. >> >> >> In what way was it not clear? It was certainly not conspicuous, but it >> was clear. > > Although “clear and conspicuous” is a common legal term, I consider it at > least > partly a legal doublet, like “null and void”. It may be possible to be > conspicuous without being clear, but it is much more questionable whether > something can be clear without being conspicuous. > > For example, Google’s dictionary definition of “clear” is: > > 1. easy to perceive, understand, or interpret. > > However, the ballot in question went out of its way to make it hard for > players > to perceive it, or understand or interpret that it was a ballot.
So I kind of think like you do omd. This was the result of a judgement in 2018 (an Apathy intent with the exact same type of hiding) and Jason's previous answer (that there's a difference between "clear" and "conspicuous") became became the precedent. That's why "unobfuscated" was added to dependent action intent requirements. For non-dependent actions, filed it in the back pocket, figured someone would get away with it once and it would fixed by proposal. Or a subsequent CFJ would find more in your direction. Unfortunately the case is in the still-large cfj archive gap in 2018. Been browsing BUS backwards and haven't found it yet. Will add it to gratuitous when I do... -G.
