==============================  CFJ 2833  ==============================

    If I publish a message stating "I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions
    in their  voting period" but do not further reference any particular
    group of decisions, I have "clearly identified" the matter to be
    decided for all Decisions in their voting period, for the purposes
    of R683(b).

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

Caller:                                 G.
Barred:                                 omd

Judge:                                  Yally
Judgement:                              TRUE

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

History:

Called by G.:                           13 Aug 2010 23:13:12 GMT
Assigned to Yally:                      14 Aug 2010 02:46:41 GMT
Judged TRUE by Yally:                   20 Aug 2010 15:20:28 GMT
Yally recused:                          20 Aug 2010 15:20:28 GMT

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

Caller's Arguments:

1.  Can you "clearly identify" something by a blanket specification, without
specifically referencing the fact that you are aware that the something
exists?

2.  If so, can you identify something without acknowledging that it exists?

A note that, if the voting sentences in the CFJ statements are taken to be
conditionals (conditional on decisions existing, R2127 seems to restrict
itself to conditional specification of option selected, but is silent on
conditional specification of matter to be decided.  Taken with R2280 on
implicit votes, it implies that permission to be general or conditional has
to be found in the rules for each separate part of the voting specification
of R683.

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

Caller's Evidence:

Rule 683/15 (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 during the voting period for the
          decision, and the submitter is an eligible voter at the
          time of submission.

      (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.  ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to
          retracting it and casting a vote with the new value.)

      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.

      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.

Rule 2127/6 (Power=1)
Conditional Votes

      If a vote on an Agoran decision is submitted conditionally (e.g.
      "FOR if <X> is true, otherwise AGAINST"), then the selected
      option is evaluated based on the value of the condition(s) at
      the end of the voting period, and is clearly specified if and
      only if the value of the condition(s) can be reasonably
      determined (without circularity or paradox) from information
      reasonably available during the voting period.  If the option
      cannot be clearly identified, a vote of PRESENT is cast.

      Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to
      conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most
      common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
      decision.

      Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to
      conditionally casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most
      common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that
      decision.  FOR and AGAINST are opposites.

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.

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

Judge Yally's Arguments:

Because the rules do not define what clearly identifying a decision
means, it seems logical to me to take the common sense, literal
definition of that phrase to infer that "clearly identifying" in this
case means to explicitly say which decisions are under the
identification and which are not. Because there is always a definite
set of Agoran decisions in their voting period, and often times the
vote FOR is a valid option, this is successful. I therefore judge this
case to be TRUE. The rule is obviously trying to prevent against such
behavior as "I vote FOR the best Agoran decision currently in its
voting period," because that type of statement is ambiguous.

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