Oh crap. Yes, you're right, I think - hadn't realised it before. That's incredibly confusing (though still, I think, unlikely to happen).
OK, please nobody do anything major with coins until these CFJs are judged, otherwise we may end up with a horrible divergence. On the plus side, both the most recent Treasuror report and the Assessor resolution we're all talking about are blocked from self-ratification, so we don't have a time limit for working it out. (Except Trigon being obliged to destroy all player-owned land next week, but that shouldn't affect coin/point ownership directly.) -twg ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 9:20 PM, D Margaux <dmargaux...@gmail.com> wrote: > But just to clarify—if the CFJs find that G and i couldn’t transfer to the > contract, then I think both of our votes (and our zombies’ votes) flip, > causing the Point Installation Act to pass. Or is there some reason that > wouldn’t occur in that situation? > > > On Oct 2, 2018, at 2:33 PM, Timon Walshe-Grey m...@timon.red wrote: > > That reply was in response to D. Margaux's similar CoE, not yours. I > > properly responded to your CoE by citing the appropriate CFJ. > > -twg > > ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Original Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ > > > > > On Tuesday, October 2, 2018 6:29 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu > > > wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 2 Oct 2018, Timon Walshe-Grey wrote: > > > > It's not a conditional vote, it's a conditional action to change > > > > the vote. You still submitted an unconditional vote; it's just thatthe > > > > content of your vote is, er, conditional on something else. > > > > > > How on earth do you come up with that reading? My message was: > > > > > > > I vote as follows [snip] > > > > [...] > > > > Conditional: If G. successfully transferred at least 1 coin to a > > > > contract in this message, AGAINST, otherwise FOR. > > > > > > How is the "conditional" not clearly and obviously part of the vote > > > (i.e. a conditional ballot)?
