Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2018-12-03 Thread Kerim Aydin
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

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2018-12-03 Thread D. Margaux
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

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: OFF: [Arbitor] Court Gazette

2018-12-03 Thread Gaelan Steele
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.

DIS: Re: BUS: Weekly maintenance

2018-12-03 Thread Ørjan Johansen
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. Greetings, Ørjan, who is