Thanks for your hard work. I'm optimistic that things will gradually get back on track if the ratio of (reports published and other actions that clarify the state of the game) to (actions that raise questions) stays reasonably high for a while.
And sorry, in hindsight it probably would have been more productive for me to just let your resolution of the proposals self-ratify. On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 15:51, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > > > I resign the office of Assessor. It's possible that I never managed > to claim assessor since I had to deputize to actually resolve the > issue and I may have failed. > > I think the fact that this stems from yet another office's lateness > (the ADoP) crosses my personal line of "I'm not carrying this whole goddam > thing myself". > > Someone else can resolve this. Sorry. > > On 4/26/2019 7:51 PM, James Cook wrote: > > On Sat, 27 Apr 2019 at 01:41, James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > >>> For the following tallies, all voters below have a voting strength of 3, > >>> except for G. who has 4 (Prime Minister) and twg with 0 (9 blots). > >> > >> Unofficial claims of error about voting strength, sent to the > >> discussion list since I don't think they affect anything but it's good > >> to keep track: > >> > >> * Corona has 8 blots, so eir voting strength is 2. > >> > >> * If my CoE about the Prime Minister election is correct, then G's > >> voting strength is 3, not 4. > > > > Actually, sorry, I'll make it official, since I think the error means > > the resolutions haven't been adopted yet, if I'm reading Rule 208 > > correctly. (I'm looking at this part: "It ... provides a tally of the > > voter's valid ballots.") > > > > Claim of error: the for/against tallies in the Deputy Assessor's > > resolution of Proposals 8165-8174 were incorrect, for the reason > > specified in my above-quoted message. > > > > (It's not clear to me what is required in a "tally" of the ballots. If > > we're uncertain about the voting strengths, would just listing the > > number of ballots count as a tally for the purposes of satisfying that > > part of Rule 208?) > >
