==============================  CFJ 2305  ==============================

    If BobTHJ does not retract nor cast any further votes on the Agoran
    decision on whether to adopt proposal 6011 for the rest of its
    voting period, nor explicitly define eir current votes on that
    proposal in the future, e will have at least one valid vote on that


Caller:                                 ais523

Judge:                                  root

Judge:                                  Murphy
Judgement:                              TRUE



Called by ais523:                       08 Dec 2008 16:13:21 GMT
Assigned to root:                       10 Dec 2008 22:41:53 GMT
root recused:                           23 Dec 2008 00:19:27 GMT
Assigned to Murphy:                     23 Dec 2008 00:27:00 GMT
Judged TRUE by Murphy:                  23 Dec 2008 00:55:19 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

The pledge defining SDONATE was terminated recently, so it's not clear
that it has a meaning clear enough to be a conditional vote any more. Of
course, this is simply fixed by retract/revote or stating what is meant;
but this CFJ is about what would happen if it wasn't fixed. (Note that I
don't think the text of the pledge was reasonably available during the
voting period, because AFAIR Murphy deleted it from eir Notary website
when e intended to terminate it, rather than when it was terminated.)


Judge Murphy's Arguments:

SDONATE was not defined by a pledge, merely by a standing definition
announced and (at least as of the time this case was initiated) not
retracted by BobTHJ.


Judge Murphy's Evidence:

In this message:


BobTHJ wrote:

> In all my future communications, a vote of SDONATE(x - y) should be
> evaluated to be the posting of Sell Ticket with cost x and casting all
> my valid votes endorsing the filler. If the ticket is not filled, the
> vote should be evaluated as a DONATE(y) vote (per the PAC contract).