Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
On Tue, 2018-11-27 at 10:13 -0500, Jacob Arduino wrote: > Indeed I retract You need to post the retraction to a public forum (typically agora- business). Actions in agora-discussion don't work. -- ais523
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
Indeed I retract On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" 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 >
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
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 >
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
No, it's standard to fail second ballots when people forget to retract their first one. That's why the last sentence of R683 defines "changing" a vote, so voters can use that term as a shorthand - but you still have to use it explicitly. On Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Jacob Arduino wrote: > My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but > I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something > silly. > > On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > > > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any > > previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last > > person to vote FOR on 8136. > > > > And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original > > message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”. > > > > Gaelan > > > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, 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 > > > > >
DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
My second CFJ states re: 8138, not 8136. These might be too nitpicky, but I'd rather deal with it now than see you disenfranchised for something silly. On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 12:26 AM Gaelan Steele wrote: > Bah, do we need to explicitly retract votes? For clarity: I retract any > previous votes on 8136, then I ENDORSE whoever would otherwise be the last > person to vote FOR on 8136. > > And not sure what you mean by endorsing “two”—my record of the original > message I sent contains “ENDORSE V.J. Rada”. > > Gaelan > > > On Nov 26, 2018, at 8:34 PM, 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 > >
