No, it's standard to fail second ballots when people forget to retract
their first one. That's why the last sentence of R683 defines "changing"
a vote, so voters can use that term as a shorthand - but you still have
to use it explicitly.
On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote:
> 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 <g...@canishe.com> 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 <jacobardu...@gmail.com>
> > 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
> >
> >
>
