BUS: Voting CFJs

[Jacob Arduino]

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

[Gaelan Steele]

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

Post by Jacob Arduino
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

[Gaelan Steele]

Bah, yep. I change my vote on 8138 to ENDORSE twg.

Gaelan

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.

Post by Gaelan Steele
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

Post by Jacob Arduino
CFJ: Gaelan's second ballot on Proposal 8136 is invalid.
Supporting statement: Rule 683/25 requires that "6. The voter has no

other

Post by Jacob Arduino
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

[Jacob Arduino]

Ttttpf

---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Jacob Arduino <***@gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Nov 27, 2018, 10:13
Subject: Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Voting CFJs
To: Agora Nomic discussions (DF) <agora-***@agoranomic.org>


Indeed I retract

On Nov 27, 2018 09:48, "Kerim Aydin" <***@u.washington.edu> 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.

Post by Jacob Arduino
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