On Mon, 2026-05-18 at 13:58 +0300, msh210 via agora-discussion wrote: > HI, all. > > Question from a newbie. > > Maybe I'm misreading it, but R2127 sounds like it only allows for > if-then, not if-then-else, conditional votes. In fact, it explicitly > prescribes that the "else" is always PRESENT: > << > If the conditional is clearly specified, and evaluates to a valid > vote, it is counted as that vote; otherwise, it is counted as PRESENT. > >> > > Are if-then-else votes traditionally accepted despite the wording of > R2127? (Or maybe I'm reading R2127 wrong?) > > (An example of an if-then-else vote might be "If So-and-so votes, I > endorse em, else I vote...".) > > All the best, > > msh210
It is definitely common practice to allow "if-then-else" conditional votes (or even more complicated structures). In fact, R2127 even gives an example like that in the second paragraph, immediately after the passage you quote: > Any vote which is clearly expressed as a conditional, e.g. "FOR if > <X> is true, AGAINST otherwise", is a valid conditional vote that > evaluates as specified. I think that, with that example and the usual guidelines for rule interpretation including "game custom", the rule taken as a whole certainly functions as intended, but I do see your reading of the passage you quote now that you've pointed it out. I can't immediately think of a different way to phrase it that would be clearer, but I think it would be good if we could find one. ~qenya
