My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something silly.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele <[email protected]> wrote: > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any > previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last > person to vote FOR on 8136. > > And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original > message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”. > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, Jacob Arduino <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid. > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no > other > > valid ballots on the same decision." This condition is not met, since > > Gaelan already submitted a ballot for Proposal 8136. > > > > CFJ: Gaelan's ballot on Proposal 8138 is invalid. > > Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "4. The ballot clearly > > identifies a *valid* vote, as determined by the voting method" (emphasis > > mine). However, Gaelan has endorsed "two" on Proposal 8138, and there was > > no player named "two" at the beginning of the voting period. > > > > By Rule 991/29, I bar Gaelan from judging both/either of these CFJs, for > > obvious reasons. > > > > - Jacob Arduino > >
