Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
G. wrote: On 7/1/2020 8:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.” [Just entering the case now]. Funnily enough, in discord (before the case was called) I used this quote as a reason the ballot *did* work. Because the quote illustrates that it's possible to fill the letter of the law legal/formal process about a notice being clearly written on a piece of paper (I have no doubt that the Planning Department followed the letter of the law), while still in practice locking it away. True as far as it goes, but the law in question probably lacks such requirements as the judgement found must be met in Agora. It instead described a hypothetical case where Arthur also got a (not obfuscated in any way) letter a week earlier, even if all that letter said is "there's some demolition taking place in your neighborhood, full documentation is on display at the Such-and-Such Building".
Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
On 7/1/2020 8:24 PM, omd via agora-business wrote: > “Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a > locked > filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying > ‘Beware of the Leopard.” [Just entering the case now]. Funnily enough, in discord (before the case was called) I used this quote as a reason the ballot *did* work. Because the quote illustrates that it's possible to fill the letter of the law legal/formal process about a notice being clearly written on a piece of paper (I have no doubt that the Planning Department followed the letter of the law), while still in practice locking it away. -G.
Re: [Attn. Referee] Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Assessor] Resolution of Proposal 8458 (Third time's the charm)
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.
