Indeed I retract On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" <[email protected]> wrote:
You may wish to retract these CFJs: if everyone agrees you were right (well-spotted, btw) and Gaelan has changed eir votes so the issue is moot, no need to litigate. On Mon, 26 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino 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 >
