==============================  CFJ 1960  ==============================

    If a player's voting limit on an Agoran decision reduces during that
    decision's voting period, then all votes that that player has
    already cast on that decision are no longer valid.

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

Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  Machiavelli
Judgement:                              FALSE

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

History:

Called by ais523:                       20 May 2008 08:52:42 GMT
Assigned to Machiavelli:                21 May 2008 23:37:34 GMT
Judged FALSE by Machiavelli:            22 May 2008 00:06:33 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

Rule 683/14 states, in part:
      Among the otherwise-valid votes on an Agoran decision, only the
      first N submitted by each entity are valid, where N is the
      entity's voting limit on that decision.  The voting limit of an
      entity that is not an eligible voter on an Agoran decision is
      zero.  The voting limit of an eligible voter on an Agoran
      decision is one, except where rules say otherwise.
This has the effect of reducing the number of potentially valid votes that a
player has on a decision to eir voting limit, which appears to be intended,
but does not explain what happens if such a voting limit changes. I can think
of ways in which the rule might be interpreted such that either the
invalidation happens at the instant of the vote (so that, for instance, a
player who enters the Chokey during an Agoran decision still has eir full
EVLOD of votes on it if e voted on it earlier; this would lead to judgements
of TRUE and FALSE respectively), or that the invalidation happens at the end
of the voting period (causing that hypothetical player to lose eir later votes
on that decision, but not eir earlier votes, leading to judgements of FALSE
and FALSE respectively). Also, it's not entirely obvious what happens if a
player's voting limit decreases and e has made multiple non-identical votes at
the same time. I suspect the answer to these CFJs are TRUE and FALSE
respectively, because rule 683 is mostly about the act of voting, but am not
sure.

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

Judge Machiavelli's Arguments:

If a ballot is submitted during the voting period by an eligible
voter, has not been retracted, and clearly identifies the vote and
what decision it's on, it's valid, unless the voting limit clause
invalidates something. That clause does not invalidate the first N
votes, so assuming N is at least one, a valid vote will remain.
Therefore, I judge FALSE.

It's usually easy to tell which votes are the "first": if I were to
vote "FORx2, AGAINSTx2" and then get chokeyed, only my FOR votes would
count, and if I were to vote "AGAINSTx2, FORx2" and get chokeyed, only
my AGAINST votes would count. I might argue that the clause of R683/14
stating "the ballot [must] clearly identif[y] the option selected by
the voter" means that stating "I vote every possible option once" is
invalid, because which order the votes are in is not specified, but
that's irrelevant at the moment. (Hmm, maybe I should try that.)

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