Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2802 =================== CFJ 2802 (Interest Index = 0) ==================== If Wooble had been Red when e attempted to vote on the decision whether to adopt Proposal 6727, then eir vote would have been ineffective as of the end of the voting period. ======================================================================== Caller: Murphy Judge: ais523 Judgement: UNDETERMINED ======================================================================== History: Called by Murphy: 25 May 2010 17:05:55 GMT Assigned to coppro: 06 Jun 2010 21:01:19 GMT coppro recused: 20 Jun 2010 15:49:39 GMT Assigned to ais523: 20 Jun 2010 15:52:30 GMT Judged UNDETERMINED by ais523: 20 Jun 2010 19:40:15 GMT ======================================================================== Caller's Arguments: This depends on whether Rule 2280 (Implicit Votes) measures voting limit at time of voting / end of voting period / time of resolution, and possibly whether Rule 1950 (Voting on Democratic Decisions) applies to the entire voting period of a period that becomes democratic during that period. ======================================================================== Caller's Evidence: Rule 2280/0 (Power=3) Implicit Votes When an eligible voter on an Agoran decision attempts to cast ballots without explicitly specifying the number of ballots to be cast (e.g. "FOR" instead of "FOR*1" or "FOR*3"), e casts a number of ballots equal to eir voting limit on that decision. Rule 1950/20 (Power=3) Voting on Democratic Decisions The eligible voters on a democratic decision are those entities that were active first-class players at the start of its voting period. The voting limit of each eligible voter on a democratic decision is one. ======================================================================== Judge ais523's Arguments: I see no reason to conclude that rule 2280 measures anything but voting limit at the time the vote is made; the plain language of the rule doesn't create a conditional vote that counts a different number of times (which is dubious anyway), but merely multiple votes. Rule 1950 doesn't apply retroactively (because rule 2280 cares about the voting limit at the time the vote was made, it also cares about the ordinary/democraticness at the time the vote was made). Thus Wooble cast 0 votes. I judge CFJ 2802 UNDETERMINED; "eir vote" would have no referent in such a situation, and I can't reasonably reason about whether a nonexistent vote is effective or not. ========================================================================