I think i should think before i conditionally vote in the future, thank you.
On 1/30/07, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
root wrote:
> On 1/30/07, Quazie <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>
>> On each proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to
>> proposal
>> 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) I place a vote of FOR, unless without
>> my FOR
>> vote any one of those proposals would not pass, in which case i place
>> a vote
>> of PRESENCE.
>>
>> Also if any proposal in the group of proposals from proposal 4893 to
>> proposal 4902 (excluding proposal 4896) will pass with no votes
>> against it,
>> my previous vote upon that proposal shall be retracted and i shall
>> instead
>> vote AGAINST that proposal.
>>
>> I vote AGAINST proposal 4896
>>
>> I place a vote of 1 yellow smartie AGAINST proposal 4903 unless such
>> voting
>> has been deemed to be invalid, in which case i shall (for the time
being)
>> abstain from placing any vote upon said proposal.
>
> I don't see how you can possibly argue that these votes (excluding
> proposal 4896) are valid.
The first section is ambiguous. If some but not all of the proposals
would fail without Quazie's FOR votes, does e intend to change them
all to PRESENT?
The second is invalid; there is no provision for conditional retraction
of votes. The condition is also ambiguous ("will pass" rather than
"would pass without my previous votes").
To avoid ambiguity, Quazie could unconditionally retract all votes
in that message, then post something like this instead (I am guessing
as to what Quazie actually intended):
"For each of proposals 4893 through 4902, except 4896:
If (in the absence of any vote from me) it would pass with no votes
against, then I vote AGAINST it.
Otherwise, if (in the absence of any vote from me) it would pass,
then I vote FOR it.
Otherwise, I vote PRESENT on it."
