spoon-business: RFJ: State of the Ballot.

["Kieron Jarvis" <kieron.jarvis@xxxxxxxxxx>]

I request judgment on the following statements:

1. This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd.
2. All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting period became Ballot
Issues at the beginning of the voting period.
3. Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by
the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
4. Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to
recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.
5. Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues.
6. Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected
the actual state of Ballot Issues.
7. A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a Ballot
Issue can not be counted.

I apologise for my bulk RFJs. There are a couple of heavy duty judgments in
there. I hope you can all see what I'm getting at with this lot. Because
Ballot Issues can substantially affect the Rules and/or Gamestate I believe
we need to be clear of exactly what status Proposals and Ballot Items have
and at what specific times those states may change.

This is particularly important with the current nweek's voting. We need to
know which revision of each Proposal we voted for. If it was indeed an
earlier revision than that which was published, do our votes count ?  If
they don't count then we probably didn't achieve Quorum on most of the
Ballot.


Here are some supporting comments for each statement.

1. This nweek began at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd.
<argument>
According to the archives, the post which stated that the game began at
00:00:00 UTC that day was sent on October 2nd, the web page itself states
that the game started at 00:00:00 UTC on October 2nd. Yet J14 claims that
the game began on October 1st. We should clear this up as it will affect all
our nweeks from now on.


2. All Active Proposals at the beginning of the voting period became Ballot
Issues at the beginning of the voting period.
<argument>
As I said, I believe we need to be absolutely certain when items became
Ballot Issues. I refer the judge to R202 & R111.


3. Alterations to Active Proposals or Motions which are not recognised by
the start of an nweek's voting do not alter any Ballot Issues.
<argument>
R221 seems fairly clear on this point.


4. Any post sent after an nweek's voting commences which purports to
recognise changes does not alter any Ballot Issues.
<argument>
I think we need to decide whether rules take precedence over 'recognition'.
If recognition takes precedence then the Officer charged with recognition
holds even more power than I thought.


5. Motions requiring a vote introduced during an nweek's voting will not
become Ballot Issues.
<argument>
R202 point 2 "Motions requiring a vote introduced since the previous nweek's
voting" seems to indicate that these Motions will only become Ballot Issues
if introduced after completion of the voting, while also limiting it to the
current nweek. Maybe I should have looked for ways to exploit this loophole,
but I'd rather not.


6. Inaccurate, late, or no publication of Ballot Issues does not affected
the actual state of Ballot Issues.
<argument>
Does a published revision of a Proposal take precedence even if that
revision was not legally made ?


7. A vote which names a revision of an item which has not become a Ballot
Issue can not be counted.
<argument>
If I vote on P301/0 and P303/1 is the Ballot Issue, does my vote count ?

XnJester.