==============================  CFJ 1261  ==============================

    Proposal 4104 passed.

========================================================================

Caller:                                 Elysion

Judge:                                  Maud
Judgement:                              FALSE

========================================================================

History:

Called by Elysion:                      23 Jan 2001 18:36:01 GMT
Assigned to Maud:                       24 Jan 2001 07:09:03 GMT
Judged FALSE by Maud:                   30 Jan 2001 05:25:57 GMT

========================================================================

Judge Maud's Arguments:

The vote on Proposal 4104, as reported in the Assessor's Voting Report
for Proposals 4094-4104 (#5 in Evidence), was 3 FOR, 2 AGAINST.  Since
the AI on this Proposal was 1, the Proposal passed if the reported vote is
correct.  However, the validity of Elysion's votes (eir voting message is #4
in Evidence) has been disputed.  If Elysion did not succeed in casting
3 votes FOR Proposal 4104, then either e succeeded in casting 3 votes
AGAINST the Proposal, or e did not succeed in casting any votes on the
Proposal.  In either case, the Proposal would not have passed.

Rule 683 (#1 in Evidence) sets two relevant conditions on voting.  First,
the Voter must inform the Assessor of the votes e is casting on a Proposal.
Second, the vote must be "one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN (or an obvious
synonym of one of these)".  Rule 754 (#2 in Evidence) states that
"[d]ifferences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the substitution of
a word [...] by a synonym or abbreviation, are inconsequential in all
forms of Nomic communication, as long as there is no ambiguity in meaning".
Rule 754 takes precedence over any Rule that specifies terminology or
grammar, which, arguably, is what Rule 683 does.  Thus, a vote must be
one of (and may be any of) FOR, AGAINST, ABSTAIN, or any synonym,
abbreviation, or misspelling for FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN.

Elysion's voting message seems to indicate that e attempted to cast
three votes "AGAINT" Proposal 4104.  However, Elysion claims (#3 in
Evidence) that e "established a code with Assessor t prior to voting
that AGAINT meant FOR".  Since Assessor t did record Elysion as
casting three votes FOR instead of three votes AGAINST (the most likely
perception of "AGAINT" by someone unfamiliar with the AGAINT-code),
it is fair to say that Elysion did establish the code e claims to
have established.  This does not necessarily imply, though, that
Elysion cast the votes e attempted to cast.

In a message to agora-discussion (not included in Evidence), Steve
writes:

        The use of words, or translated words, or synonyms (if these
        do not include translated words) all have this in common:
        they wear their meanings on their sleeves; their purpose is
        to communicate publically. The use of a code is quite
        different: its purpose is to hide the content of a
        communication from all those who do not know the code. Hence
        the distinction between a code and a synonym is not the same
        as the distinction between a translated word and a synonym.

Another way of looking at this is the following.  The use of FOR,
AGAINST, ABSTAIN, or their synonyms, abbreviations, or misspellings
does not require the Assessor to consider the intent of the Voter
in order to be informed of eir votes.  However, the use of a code
does; in effect, a code such as the AGAINT-code may be interpreted
as the statement: when I say AGAINT, what I really mean to say
is FOR.  With such a code in effect, if Elysion sends a message to
the Assessor stating "I cast three votes AGAINT Proposal 4104",
there are two basic possibilities.  First, Elysion could have
intended to cast three votes FOR Proposal 4104 and decided to use the
codeword "AGAINT".  Second, Elysion could have intended to cast
three votes AGAINST Proposal 4104 and accidentally left out the 'S'
in "AGAINST".  A reasonable Assessor would not have sufficient
evidence to rule out either possibility without asking Elysion what
e meant; the fact that the Assessor would have to ask Elysion what
e meant indicates that the Assessor was not informed of any votes.  As
Palnatoke suggested in agora-discussion (not included in Evidence),
"AGAINT" is ambiguous.  The establishment of a code does not change
this ambiguity.

It is therefore the opinion of this Court that Assessor t was not
unambiguously informed of Elysion's votes on Proposal 4104, that,
furthermore, Elysion did not in fact vote on Proposal 4104, and
that Proposal 4104, thus lacking Quorum, did not pass.

Therefore, this Court judges the Statement to be FALSE.

========================================================================

Judge Maud's Evidence:

 1.  Rule 683/9 (Power=1)
 2.  Rule 754/4 (Power=1)
 3.  Establishment of AGAINT-code
 4.  Elysion's voting message
 5.  Assessor's Voting Report for Proposals 4094-4104

==============================================================================

1.  Rule 683/9 (Power=1)

Rule 683/9 (Power=1)
Voting on Proposals

      A Voter authorised to cast votes on a particular Proposal may do
      so only by informing the Assessor of the vote or votes e is
      casting on that Proposal. Once cast, a vote cannot be changed or
      cancelled by the Voter which cast it, although it may be
      cancelled as other Rules require.

      A vote upon a Proposal must be one of FOR, AGAINST, or ABSTAIN
      (or an obvious synonym of one of these).  Something which is not
      one of these is not a vote upon a Proposal.

      A vote cast by an entity which does not have an Executor
      is cast at a time and in a manner specified in other Rules.

==============================================================================

2.  Rule 754/4 (Power=1)

Rule 754/4 (Power=1)
Spelling, Quoting, and Terminology

      Differences in spelling, grammar, or dialect, or the
      substitution of a word or phrase by a synonym or abbreviation,
      are inconsequential in all forms of Nomic communication, as long
      as there is no ambiguity in meaning.  A Player shall not be
      penalised for accurately quoting a Rule, Proposal, Statement,
      Judgement, the words of another Player, or other reference.

      Except when the Rules explicitly state otherwise, any
      mathematical term in the Rules shall be construed to have its
      standard mathematical meaning.  In particular, "number" shall
      mean "real number".

      This Rule takes precedence over any other Rule which specifies
      terminology or grammar.

==============================================================================

3.  Establishment of AGAINT-code

>From elysion@mindspring.com Mon Jan 29 21:10:11 2001
Date: Sun, 21 Jan 2001 19:37:26 -0500
From: Joshua Boehme <elysion@mindspring.com>
Reply-To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
To: agora-discussion@gecko.serc.rmit.edu.au
Subject: DIS: Re: COE on passage of P4104

Steve Gardner wrote:
>
> t wrote:
> >
> >Num. Type Proposer    AI Title                         RESULT   F  A  -  *
> >4104 Ord  Elysion      1 Alternate Adoption System     PASSES   3  2  0
> >===========================================================================
> >
> >Ordinary
> >               4104
> >
> >Elysion        3F
> >Steve          A
> >Wes            A
>
> H. Assessor t,
>
> I claim this Report is in error. Elysion voted 3xAGAINST P4104, and thus
> the Proposal failed 0-5.
>
> Elysion's votes are at
http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m2084.html

No, I voted 3xAGAINT. I established a code with Assessor t prior to voting
that AGAINT meant FOR.

(snip0

Subject: Agora: Voting Code
   Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2001 14:50:07 -0500
   From: Joshua Boehme <elysion@mindspring.com>
     To: t <scurra@iki.fi>

On proposal #4104, AGAINT is a codeword for FOR; AGAINST still means
AGAINST.

Wheeee, a chance for some mischief.

(snip)

See also CFJ 1217.


--

Elysion

==============================================================================

4.  Elysion's voting message

[Excerpted; original is
http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-business/m2084.html]

Joshua Boehme wrote:

> No.      | Title                          | By           | AI | Date
>          |                                |              |    |
> 4094D+   | Billing winning bidders        | Steve        |  1 | 13Dec00
> 4095+    | Make Stems Transferrable       | Blob         |  1 | 18Dec00
> 4096*D+  | Fix Rule 1840                  | Elysion      |  2 | 18Dec00
> 4097+    | Scores                         | t            |  1 | 31Dec00
> 4098*D+  | Spelling Fixes, Part 2 of 2    | Murphy       |  2 | 25Dec00
> 4099D+   | Spelling Fixes, Part 1 of 2    | Murphy       |  1 | 25Dec00
> 4100D+   | The Dole                       | Murphy       |  1 | 25Dec00
> 4101*+   | Compensate for Complacent      | Murphy       |  2 | 25Dec00
>          |   Oligarchy                    |              |    |
> 4102+    | More Ways to Win               | Murphy       |  1 | 25Dec00
> 4103+    | Adjust Elections               | Murphy       |  1 | 25Dec00
> 4104U+   | Alternate Adoption System      | Elysion      |  1 | 31Dec00

Democratic:

4096: FOR
4098: FOR
4101: FOR

Ordinary:

4094: 3xFOR
4095: 3xAGAINST
4097: 3xFOR
4099: 3xFOR
4100: 3xAGAINST
4102: 3xFOR
4103: 3xFOR
4104: 3xAGAINT

I note that if an Oligarch is the only player to vote FOR proposals 4095,
4100, and 4104, e will gain some points.

--

Elysion

==============================================================================

5.  Assessor's Voting Report for Proposals 4094-4104

[Excerpted; original is http://www.escribe.com/games/agora-official/m909.html]

Agora Nomic
Voting Report for Proposals 4094-4104
21 Jan 2000

Current Voting Mode: Public
===========================================================================
Voting on Proposals 4094-4103 commenced: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:24:17 -0500
Voting on Proposals 4094-4103 concluded: Sun, 14 Jan 2001 19:24:17 -0500
Voting on Proposal       4104 commenced: Sun, 07 Jan 2001 19:24:17 -0500
Voting on Proposal       4104 concluded: Fri, 12 Jan 2001 19:24:17 -0500

Num. Type Proposer    AI Title                         RESULT   F  A  -  *
4094 Ord  Steve        1 Billing winning bidders       PASSES   5  0  0
4095 Ord  Blob         1 Make Stems Transferable       FAILS    1  4  0
4096 Dem  Elysion      2 Fix Rule 1840                 PASSES  12  0  0  0
4097 Ord  t            1 Scores                        FAILS/Q  4  0  0
4098 Dem  Murphy       2 Spelling Fixes, Part 2 of 2   PASSES  11  1  0  0
4099 Ord  Murphy       1 Spelling Fixes, Part 1 of 2   PASSES   5  0  0
4100 Ord  Murphy       1 The Dole                      FAILS    0  5  0
4101 Dem  Murphy       2 Compensate for Complacent ... FAILS    7  6  0  1
4102 Ord  Murphy       1 More Ways to Win              PASSES   4  1  0
4103 Ord  Murphy       1 Adjust Elections              PASSES   4  1  0
4104 Ord  Elysion      1 Alternate Adoption System     PASSES   3  2  0
===========================================================================

Ordinary
               4094    4095    4097    4099    4100    4102    4103    4104

Elysion        3F      3A      3F      3F      3A      3F      3F      3F
(vacant)
(vacant)
Peekee
Steve          F       A       F       F       A       F       F       A
Wes            F       F               F       A       A       A       A

FOR            5       1       4       5       0       4       4       3
AGAINST        0       4       0       0       5       1       1       2
ABSTAIN        0       0       0       0       0       0       0       0

Voters         3       3       2       3       3       3       3       3
Quorum?        Y       Y       N       Y       Y       Y       Y       Y
PASSES?        Y       N       N       Y       N       Y       Y       Y

========================================================================