From owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Mon Jun 17 04:37:58 1996 Received: from desiree.teleport.com (desiree.teleport.com [192.108.254.21]) by Shamino.quincy.edu (8.6.12/8.6.9) with ESMTP id EAA11181 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 04:37:57 -0500 Received: from localhost (daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA15261; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:33:57 -0700 (PDT) Received: by desiree.teleport.com (bulk_mailer v1.3); Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:33:55 -0700 Received: (from daemon@localhost) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) id CAA15244 for nomic-official-outgoing; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:33:55 -0700 (PDT) Received: from heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk (exim@heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.11]) by desiree.teleport.com (8.7.5/8.7.3) with SMTP id CAA15231 for ; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 02:33:51 -0700 (PDT) Received: from albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk [128.232.0.96] (exim) by heaton.cl.cam.ac.uk with smtp (Exim 0.52 #1) id E0uVagu-0006Yl-00; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:33:49 +0100 Received: from mn200 by albatross.cl.cam.ac.uk with local (Exim 0.52 #1) id E0uVagu-0002cR-00; Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:33:48 +0100 From: Michael Norrish To: nomic-official@teleport.com Subject: OFF: (CotC) CFJ 874 judged FALSE Message-Id: Date: Mon, 17 Jun 1996 10:33:48 +0100 Sender: owner-nomic-official@teleport.com Reply-To: nomic-discussion@teleport.com Precedence: bulk Status: RO ====================================================================== CFJ 874 "Rule 833 should be interpreted to mean that if either 1) a Proposal receives exactly one more Vote FOR than AGAINST, and the Assessor Voted FOR that Proposal; or 2) a Proposal receives exactly one more Vote AGAINST than FOR, and the Assessor Voted FOR that Proposal; then the Assessor's Vote does not count toward determining the F-A award or penalty for that Proposal." ====================================================================== Judge: Zefram Judgement: FALSE Eligible: Andre, Chuck, elJefe, favor, Jtael, KoJen, Michael, Oerjan, Steve, Swann, Vanyel, Zefram Not eligible: Caller: Morendil Barred: Kelly Declined: Murphy On hold: ====================================================================== History: Called by Morendil, Wed, 5 Jun 1996 00:08:01 +0100 Assigned to Murphy, Wed, 5 Jun 96 9:55:50 GMT Declined by Murphy, Wed, 5 Jun 1996 13:17:45 -0500 (CDT) Re-assigned to Zefram, Fri, 7 Jun 96 11:35:15 GMT Andre makes himself ineligible, Fri, 7 Jun 96 14:06:45 METDST Judged FALSE by Zefram, Fri, 14 Jun 1996 00:18:28 +0100 (BST) Published, as of this message ====================================================================== Reasoning of the Judge: The question, as the Judge of CFJ 873 pointed out, is which meaning of the term "tiebreaking Vote" is appropriate. I see three possibilities: 1. It refers to the case where without the Assessor's Vote there would be equal numbers of Votes FOR and AGAINST the Proposal, and the Assessor's Vote resolves this tie. 2. It refers to the case where without the Assessor's Vote the numbers of Votes would be such that no definitive result has been obtained, and the Assessor's Vote resolves this tie. 3. It refers to the case where the normal process of Voting results in no definitive result being obtained, and the Assessor is empowered to make a casting Vote to resolve this tie, and does so. Case 3 was applicable under now-repealed legislation, but is now not possible. It is thus a hypothetical case. Case 2 is now also hypothetical, due to the same legislation. Where voting would previously have been considered tied (allowing the Assessor to make a casting Vote), the Proposal now fails, which is most definitely a conclusive result. Case 1, being purely a matter of numbers of Votes, is still relevant. The above paragraph might lead one to conclude that I will Judge TRUE, on the simple grounds that this is the only reasonable interpretation of the issue that would make the provision in question have any effect under current legislation. This is not a valid legal argument in Agora; it is well established that Rules need not have any effect. For example, Rule 1526 prohibited the Banker from taking advantage of certain knowledge of the Vototron. As the Vototron and Rule 1526 never existed simultaneously, Rule 1526 was without inherent effect. I reach the conclusion, as did the Judge of CFJ 873, that the only way to determine the correct interpretation of the term is by reference to the English language itself. And given that as a reference I would have to conclude that interpretation 3 is the correct one. More precisely, I believe that the phrase "tiebreaking vote", in the context of a voting procedure, should generally be taken as referring to a situation in which the normal process of voting has reached no conclusion, and an individual is called upon to resolve the issue by casting an additional vote. And thus I would Judge this CFJ FALSE. But there is another issue. Note that in interpretations 1 and 2 above I have ignored the possibility of cases where the Assessor Votes both FOR and AGAINST the Proposal in question. Indeed, there is significant ambiguity in the simple case of the Assessor casting two Votes the same way. Had the Rule not referred specifically to the Assessor, there would be further ambiguities of this nature. This issue does not directly affect the interpretation upon which I decided, but it does affect the interpretation referred to by the statement (interpretation 1). Consider the case where a Proposal receives exactly one more Vote FOR than AGAINST and the Assessor has Voted both FOR and AGAINST the Proposal. This case falls within the set of cases referred to by the statement. In this case I suggest that there is no rational interpretation by which the Assessor can be said to have cast a "tiebreaking Vote". Thus the interpretation suggested by the statement is not reasonable in this case, making the statement trivially FALSE. I therefore Judge this CFJ FALSE. I suggest that the Caller would have more success in making a CFJ with more narrow scope, such as one referring specifically to the case of Proposal 2610 to which e refers in eir Arguments. I hope that my analysis of the matter, above, will aid the Judge of such a CFJ. ====================================================================== (Caller's) Arguments: Relevant Rules : 833. R&A : Thanks to Murphy for the wording of that second attempt, and my apologies to the CotC and all Agorans for the noise. :) 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. ======================================================================