DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
omd wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proposal 7032 (AI=3) by omd Flexibility (fixed) Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing one with two. This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. To be As (a) the voting limit is two and (b) this has been brought to light, I'll generally interpret votes as selecting the same option twice.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Wed, 18 May 2011, Ed Murphy wrote: omd wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphy emurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proposal 7032 (AI=3) by omd Flexibility (fixed) Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing one with two. This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. To be As (a) the voting limit is two and (b) this has been brought to light, I'll generally interpret votes as selecting the same option twice. That doesn't quite work, as it's pretty clear that submitting one valid ballot requires naming the two options. For example I cast one ballot FOR/AGAINST.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
ais523 wrote: --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: On Tue, 17 May 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. Actually, I think we're just fine. The above clause conflicts directly with this one: (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. and (c) takes precedence due to Cretans. That's my pre-CFJ opinion anyway. If we are forced to select two options rather than one (fortunately, it's not looking that way at the moment), would that trigger AIAN? Or is there some way to resolve the deadlock? (Unfortunately, FOR+PRESENT doesn't seem to be legal under the two-options interpretation, and you can't have a proposal with a required vote to adopt below 50%+1, because even at AI 1 there's a separate rule requiring more FOR than AGAINST.) It doesn't trigger AIAN as long as the Assessor announces some results and they're allowed to self-ratify still works.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On 05/17/11 20:17, omd wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Proposal 7032 (AI=3) by omd Flexibility (fixed) Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing one with two. This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. To be I'd say that's ambiguous. -scshunt
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:20 PM, Sean Hunt scsh...@csclub.uwaterloo.ca wrote: On 05/17/11 20:17, omd wrote: On Sun, May 15, 2011 at 8:10 PM, Ed Murphyemurph...@socal.rr.com wrote: Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing one with two. This amendment modifies two clauses I'd say that's ambiguous. I was going to say that; then I noticed that I had used the same language repeatedly in my judicial questions proposal without thinking about it, intending to replace multiple instances, and thought that actually, the /g is usually implied in ordinary language. I thought I remembered a past amendment of the same form which was rejected due to ambiguity, but after a search I couldn't find it. So I decided to accept both proposals...
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. Now that I think about it, the most sensible way to interpret this is as a requirement for each ballot to specify both FOR and AGAINST-- i.e., there's now no way to vote for a proposal without also voting against it! I award myself a Dunce Cap.
DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. Now that I think about it, the most sensible way to interpret this is as a requirement for each ballot to specify both FOR and AGAINST-- i.e., there's now no way to vote for a proposal without also voting against it! This would have also affected all the proposals coming after in that batch.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Tue, 17 May 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. Now that I think about it, the most sensible way to interpret this is as a requirement for each ballot to specify both FOR and AGAINST-- i.e., there's now no way to vote for a proposal without also voting against it! This would have also affected all the proposals coming after in that batch. In a weird way, because the ballots were already valid under the old rule.
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Voting results for Proposals 7028 - 7051
On Tue, 17 May 2011, omd wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd c.ome...@gmail.com wrote: This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice indicating which two of the available options e selects. Actually, I think we're just fine. The above clause conflicts directly with this one: (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the voter. and (c) takes precedence due to Cretans. That's my pre-CFJ opinion anyway. -G.
