I will begin by ruling this Point of Order to be Well Taken, as this is indeed a significant matter of controversy.
Now, I shall examine the situation at hand. As Iâ€™m sure many Honourable Members are aware, the center of the dispute is the interpretation of rule 2.15; in particular the parenthetical â€œvoting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this ruleâ€. The rule also states â€œAny Honourable Member other than the Speaker may Support or Oppose this attempt by spending 1 Political Capital and posting a FOR or AGAINST voting icon, respectively, in a comment to the Coupâ€.
The first issue that is in need of resolution is whether or not a Coup is, in fact, a Votable Matter. According to the rules, â€œA Votable Matter is a post which Honourable Members may cast Votes on, such as a Proposal, a Call for Judgement or a Declaration of Victory.â€ In conjunction with the definition of a Vote as â€œa Vote that is cast in accordance with Rule â€œVotable Mattersâ€â€, this indicates that Votable Matters are the only things which can be voted on. Thus the definition indicates that, roughly, â€œSome posts are Votable Matters; these posts can be voted on,â€ rather than, â€œSome posts can be voted on; we call these Votable Matters.â€ Given that there is no indication that a Coup is a Votable Matter, I thus conclude that it is not, and accordingly that the rules relating to Votes and EVCs do not apply. The use of Voting Comments in the rules relating to Coups are incidental.
Now we must turn to the issue of the original statement. It seems clear from 2.15 that the spending of PC is linked to the posting of a single Voting Icon, and not to making a comment containing one or more Voting Icons. Fortunately, the exact Voting Icon used is irrelevant, so we may assume that it is always the first available Voting Icon in a post. Thus we turn to the heart of the issue: how do we interpret â€œvoting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this ruleâ€?
In particular, the question is whether the prepositional phrase â€œfor which no Political Capital was spentâ€ applies only to the premodified noun head â€œiconsâ€ or the noun head â€œcommentsâ€ in the prepositional phrase â€œin commentsâ€. Grammatically, the sentence is ambiguous; it could be either. However, given that the earlier sentence of the ruleâ€”-which should be highly persuasive, given that the disputed parenthetical applies to that sentenceâ€”-refers to individual Voting Icons, it seems rather absurd not to evaluate Voting Icons on an individual basis. One spends Political Capital on a single voting icon, not on the comment containing it.
I will confess that my initial reading of the rule suggested the interpretation that multiple voting icons in a single comment could count as long as one was paid for. However, upon close reflection, I believe that the alternate suggested interpretation is much more closely in keeping with the intent of the rule.
Thus I rule that the prepositional phrase â€œfor which no Political Capital was spentâ€ modifies the premodified noun head â€œvoting iconsâ€, rather than the noun head â€œcommentsâ€. Accordingly, Voting Icons for which no Political Capital is spent are ignored.
Adminned at 25 Feb 2013 06:29:40 UTC
As most have probably noticed there is a notable disagreement in the way the line “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” within the rule “La RevoluciÃ³n”. One party feels that it reads that the “for which no political capital was spent” refers to the phrase “comments to coups”. If this is true then you most only spend 1 political capital on a post and you can vote as many times as you feel like clicking. The other party feels that “voting icons in comments to Coups for which no Political Capital was spent will be ignored for the purposes of this rule” refers back to “voting icons” as “in comments to coups” was just clarifies the subject which is “voting icons”. This means you must spend 1 Political Capital for each voting Icon. I am personally of the second part but I await your decision.