Proto-judgement of the matter (regardless of how packaged):
Colloquially, to "vote on a proposal" is to cast a valid ballot for the
Decision to adopt it. As "vote on" is an active verb, it is tied to
the moment of activity (the sending of a vote). In this sense, to vote
FOR is to submit a
In the interests of clarity, I suggest re-dismissing the CFJ and
reformulating the language so that it more clearly captures what Gaelan is
saying. Maybe something like, “If a player votes by endorsing another
player, and the endorsed player casts a valid vote, then the endorsing
player’s vote is
Not that it matters, but I’m not convinced about this ruling. Proposal/decision
issue aside, in this situation:
Gaelan votes “ENDORSE G”
Then G votes “FOR”
Who was the last one to vote FOR? The CFJ would argue that G does, because e
were the last one to submit a ballot that evaluates to FOR.
On Sun, 2 Dec 2018, Edward Murphy wrote:
I expunge one of my Blots.
With the proposal to automatize this having failed, I can no longer resist
pointing out that the way the rule works, you would generally want to do
this at the _beginning_ of a week, not the end.
Ørjan, who is
Mail list logo