The below CFJ is 3901. I assign it to Gaelan.
status: 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.
==========================================================================
Caller: G.
Judge: Gaelan
==========================================================================
History:
Called by G.: 28 Feb 2021 23:59:40
Assigned to Gaelan: [now]
==========================================================================
Caller's Evidence:
On 2/28/2021 3:58 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I grant myself a promise, "Neverending PRESENT", with the following text:
> 1. I grant myself a new promise with a text identical to the text of
> the "Neverending PRESENT" promise.
> 2. If I have cast a non-withdrawn ballot on the referendum to adopt
> Proposal 8543, I withdraw it; otherwise I vote PRESENT
> (unconditionally) on the referendum to adopt Proposal 8543.
> 3. I cash the new promise.
>
>
> I cash the above-created promise.
The above message was sent via agora-business before the voting period on
the proposal 8543 referendum ended. This CFJ was called immediately after
the voting period ended and before any attempt at resolving the referendum
was published. Quorum was met by other voters regardless of this ballot.
Caller's Arguments:
For the purpose of cashing a single instance of the above promise, every
step should be determinate (and the conditional in step #2
well-determined), so the cashing should succeed and have the effects
described in its text.
Collectively, I believe this makes the status of my ballot indeterminate
(alternating infinitely between being cast and not) and therefore make
this CFJ PARADOXICAL. It is not irrelevant even if the proposal is
resolved by publishing two separate announcements (one for each state), as
the resolution method propagates to affecting the vote count for quorum
and/or popularity.
Even if the gamestate was converged after the calling of this CFJ (e.g. by
resolving a proposal batch in a different-than-typical order to prevent
it from affecting future quorum), the fact that it took a positive effort
on the part of the Assessor to do so meant that it certainly was relevant
at the time this CFJ was called. Further, I think, as a general
principle, that votes are part of the historical legislative record, and
ballots are prima facie relevant even if they don't change an outcome.
==========================================================================
