CFJ 873

"Rule 833 should be interpreted to mean that if a Proposal receives
 exactly one more Vote FOR than AGAINST, or exactly one more Vote
 AGAINST than FOR, and the Assessor Voted on that Proposal and did not
 abstain, then the Assessor's Vote does not count toward determining
 the F-A award or penalty for that Proposal."

Judge:       Andre

Judgement:   FALSE

Eligible:    Andre, Chuck, elJefe, favor, Jtael, KoJen, Michael, 
             Murphy, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram

Not eligible: 
Caller:      Morendil
Barred:      Kelly
On hold:     


  Called by Morendil, Mon, 3 Jun 1996 23:23:24 +0100
  Assigned to Andre, Tue, 4 Jun 96 9:32:39 GMT
  Judged by Andre, Fri, 7 Jun 96 14:06:45 METDST
  Judgement delivered, Fri, 7 Jun 96 14:17:07 GMT

Judge's verdict and arguments:

At first I wanted to decline this Judgement, my redenation being
something like this:

I agree with the Caller that, in absence of any evidence of the
contrary under the rules, a 'tie-breaking vote' is a vote breaking a
tie. However, this does not NECESSARILY lead to the statement in the
CFJ. The problem is with the word 'tie'. There are 2 possible
readings, neither of which is wrong at first sight:

 1. tie === equality
According to this definition, the votes are tied, when there are as
many votes for as against.

 2. tie === undecided
According to this definition, the votes are tied, when the proposal,
does clearly pass nor clearly fail.

The rules do not give a clear decision, so we turn to (rule 217) "game
custom, commonsense, past Judgements, and the best interests of the
game." I don't think there are past Judgements on this subject, and
the importance of the matter is not big enough to let the interests of
the game be the main criterion. The other 2 both could lead to both

 1. Game custom or commonsense say, that, if possible, a reading
should be given that gives a certain rule or part of a rule, some
meaning. The given Paragraph of Rule 833 has a real meaning under
interpretation 1, but not under interpretation 2, which makes
interpretation 1 more natural.

 2. But, they also say, that, if possible, meanings of Game Terms
change as little as possible when something is changed. Especially,
the removal of the 'real' Tiebreaking vote from the ruleset should not
change the meaning of the word 'Tie'. Before this rulechange on a
Proposal with AI=3 a Tie was reached when there was exactly a 3:1
majority in favour of the Proposal.  Which is consistent with
interpretation 2, but not with interpretation 1.

To me, then, the fight between the 2 meanings is still tied (pun
intended), and the tie-breaker, IMO, should be found within the
meaning of the word in everyday English. And that's where I would have
declined, to leave the question to some native Speaker. I think I
would have, at least.

However, then I was notified of the fact that elJefe had found the
Statement trivially FALSE. If namely the Assessor has voted AGAINST a
Proposal with exactly one more Vote FOR than AGAINST, that vote cannot
be called tie-breaking, whichever way one stretches the word
'tie'. Which makes the CFJ as stated trivially FALSE.

This all causes the following actions:

 1. I judge this CFJ FALSE
 2. I make myself ineligible for CFJ 874. (CotC, take note!)

(Caller's) Arguments:

I will use the instance I recently pointed out as an example :

(From the Assessor's Report)
2610  Antivirus                               FAILS 5-6 (1)
F-A :  -1

I note that if not for the Assessor's Vote, the Vote on this Proposal
would have been a 5-5 tie.

I therefore claim that the following in Rule 833 applies :

Rule 833/4 (Mutable, MI=1)
Reward or Penalty for Proposing

      For the purpose of this Rule, Votes by Voting Entities which are
      not Players do not count, nor does any tiebreaking Vote cast by
      the Assessor.

Since no other Rule defines what a 'tiebreaking Vote cast by the
Assessor' is any longer, I submit that this should be taken to have
its usual meaning, that is, a Vote which breaks a tie.