On 3/7/21 3:29 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > >> On Mar 7, 2021, at 11:16 AM, Kerim Aydin via agora-official >> <agora-offic...@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> The below CFJ is 3901. I assign it to Gaelan. >> >> status: https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901 >> <https://faculty.washington.edu/kerim/nomic/cases/#3901> >> >> =============================== CFJ 3901 =============================== >> >> The cashing of one or more promises created by G. has been >> EFFECTIVE at changing the final vote tally and/or number of voters >> on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543, for the purposes of >> R208, R879, and/or R2623. > > I'll do a careful reading of the relevant rules myself, but I'd love to hear > anyone's arguments as to why this isn't PARADOXICAL. > > Gaelan
The actions fail because Rule 2466/2 provides no mechanism to act on the behalf of oneself: > When a rule allows one person (the agent) to act on behalf of > another (the principal) to perform an action, that agent CAN > perform the action if it is POSSIBLE for the principal to do so, > taking into account any prerequisites for the action. Under R2618/2, I believe the promises were cashed but the actions contained within never occurred (I could be convinced that whether cashing doesn't succeed, though): > A promise's bearer CAN, by announcement, cash the promise, > provided that any conditions for cashing it specified by its text > are unambiguously met. By doing so, e acts on the creator of the > promise's behalf, causing the creator to act as if e published the > promise's text, and destroys the promise. -- Jason Cobb Assessor, Rulekeepor, Stonemason
