==============================  CFJ 1609  ==============================

    Michael's message, on or about 11 January 2007, reading in part "I
    hereby vote AGAINST all proposals currently up for vote", did not
    have the effect of submitting any ballots.

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

Caller:                                 Maud

Judge:                                  Sherlock
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Manu
Judgement:                              


Judge:                                  Cecilius
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by Maud:                         13 Jan 2007 13:57:06 GMT
Assigned to Sherlock:                   31 Jan 2007 13:03:46 GMT
Sherlock recused:                       31 Jan 2007 15:53:01 GMT
Assigned to Manu:                       31 Jan 2007 15:53:01 GMT
Manu recused:                           21 Feb 2007 18:10:52 GMT
Assigned to Cecilius:                   21 Feb 2007 18:10:52 GMT
Judged FALSE by Cecilius:               28 Feb 2007 05:51:59 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

We've been through this before.  In CFJ 1302, the Caller argued and
the Judge upheld that

     .. a "conditionally expressed Notice of Transfer" (that is, a
     message which appears to be a Notice of Transfer but with a
     condition attached), where a reasonable person would conclude
     that the sender of the purported Notice of Transfer did not
     possess... immediate knowledge as to whether the condition was
     true, does not express an "intent to transfer one or more
     Properties" and as such is not a Notice of Transfer.  Rather,
     such a message expresses an intent to achieve a certain state
     of affairs which may or may not include a transfer, and as such
      fails to set forth the requisite intent required by Rule 1598.

The next relevant CFJ 1307, which was called after a player posted a
message reading in part "So I transfer all of my currencies to the
Bank, and then deregister."  The Caller argued that

     this situation is exactly analogous [to that of CFJ 1302]: a
     reasonable person would conclude that Annabel did not know what
     Currencies e intended to transfer, but merely intended to
     transfer whatever e had (unknown to em at the time) so as to
     achieve a desired result.

The Judge held the statement to be TRUE.  E observed that Annabel had
specified a set of currencies that with perfect information could be
determined with complete unambiguity, but noted that

     [u]nfortunately, we do not have perfect information. Thus, it may
     no longer possible to determine precisely what Properties are
     being transferred. We may or not be in error in what we believe
     is the correct gamestate, but we do not know (unless we ratify)
     whether there is any error.  Does the statement refer to all
     Properties e actually owned? all Properties e was reported as
     owning? If the two cases are distinct, which is likely given that
     Officers occasionally make mistakes, then Annabel did not satisfy
     the first definition of "specify".

The Judge then examined several different interpretations of Annabel's
message.  These can be read in the full case file.  A URL for the full
case file is provided in the evidence section of this message.

The main rule to which CFJ 1302 and CFJ 1307 refer, rule 1598, has
long since been repealed, but the wording of rule 683 is similar to
that of rule 1598.  In particular, the specification issue to which
the Judge of CFJ 1307 refers comes from the following language of
rule 1598:

     (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
         (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
             the transferor; and

Rule 683 reads in part:

     An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
     ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
     indicating which one of the available options e selects.  To be
     valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:

     [...]

     (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

There is no major difference in meaning between "specifying" something
and "clearly identifying" something, so the reasoning of CFJ 1307
still applies.

Moreover, the conditional voting rule does not affect this, for two
reasons.  One, rule 2127 refers only to conditional specification of
the *vote*, not of the *issue*.  Two, rule 683, a power 3 rule, clearly
states that it takes precedence over any rule that would loosen the
constraints it places on ballots, and rule 2127, a power 1 rule, does
not take precedence over, nor have sufficient power to take precedence
over, rule 683.

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

Caller's Evidence:

1. CFJ 1302 is available online at

     http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1302

2. CFJ 1307 is available online at

     http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=1307

3. Rule 683/12 (Power=3) Voting on Agoran Decisions

     An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a
     ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice
     indicating which one of the available options e selects.  To be
     valid, the ballot must satisfy the following conditions:

     (a) The ballot is submitted by an eligible voter during the
         voting period for the decision.

     (b) The ballot clearly identifies the matter to be decided.

     (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the
         voter.

     (d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
         voting period.

     The strength of an option is the number of valid ballots
     selecting that option.

     Other rules may place further constraints on the validity of
     ballots.  This rule takes precedence over any rule that would
     loosen the constraints specified by this rule.

4. Rule 2127/0 (Power=1) Conditional Votes

     A ballot option (vote) on an Agoran decision may be submitted
     conditionally, and the truth or falsity of the condition and
     thus the selected option will be determined as it exists at the
     end of the voting period.

     The option selected shall be considered to be clearly identified
     if and only if the truth or falsity of the specified
     condition(s) can be reasonably determined, without circularity
     or paradox, from information published within the voting period.

5. Rule 1598/10 (Power=1) Property Transfers

     (a) A Notice of Transfer is a message which sets forth the
         intent to transfer one or more Properties from one entity
         (the "transferor") to some other entity (the "transferee").

     (b) A valid Notice of Transfer must additionally:
         (1) specify one or more Properties all of which are owned by
             the transferor; and
         (2) be sent by the Executor of the transferor, or by a
             Limited Executor of the transferor with the authority to
             execute transfers on behalf of that entity with respect
             to all of the Properties involved.

     (c) A transfer of a Property occurs only when its Recordkeepor
         receives a valid Notice of Transfer.

     (d) The effect of a transfer of Properties is to cause the
         transferor to cease to possess the Properties transferred,
         and simultaneously to cause the transferee to possess them.

     (e) The Recordkeepor of a Property shall maintain a record of
         all transfers of that Property. E shall retain a record of
         each Notice of Transfer which e receives (whether valid or
         not) involving that Property. E shall retain this record of
         each Notice of Transfer for at least four weeks after its
         receipt.

     (f) If the transferor transfers Property to the transferee with
         the purpose of satisfying a debt, or of paying the Fee
         associated with performing an action, but the debt does not
         exist, or the action is not successfully performed, then the
         transferor's Executor may publicly demand the return of the
         Property. The effect of such a demand is to cause the
         transferee to incur a debt to the transferor for the
         Property transferred.

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

Judge Cecilius's Arguments:

In the arguments of the Caller (Maud) of CFJ 1609 ("the Current CFJ"), much is
made of the similarities to CFJs 1302 and 1307 ("the Earlier CFJs").

However, despite the Caller's contention that there is "no real difference"
between "specify" (as used in Rule 1598 at the time of the Earlier CFJs) and
"clearly identif[y]" (as used in the present formulation of Rule 683), I find
that there is a difference.

The first definition of "specify" is "to name or state EXPLICITLY OR IN
DETAIL." [Capitalized emphasis mine.] (If we go through the second definition,
we get to the definition of "specification" which includes the words
"detailed" and "precise".) That is a much higher standard than to simply
identify.

While the message Michael sent in the message referred to in the Statement of
the Current CFJ does not specify IN DETAIL the proposals on which e intended
to vote, it does identify. There is no evidence on the record of any dispute
as to which proposals were currently up for vote at the time the message was
posted. Thus the identifying phrase "all proposals currently up for vote" is
not unclear and thus "clearly identifies the matter to be decided" as required
by Rule 683(b).

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