However, PSS did say this: " it also invalidates Trigon's vote. When I was writing the CFJ, I read the vote as being ambiguous about how changes to the other people's votes would affect the caster's vote, but now reading it, I am finding it unambiguous, so I would be happy to motion to reconsider, if others are also confused."
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 2:08 PM, Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be > three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do > the same as the last four people in this thread" but someone else voted > identically but replacing four with three. > > On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant <thoughtsoflifeandlight17@ > gmail.com> wrote: > >> G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case >> exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look >> at the justification. >> >> -Aris >> >> >> On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:57 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: >> >> > Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the >> answer >> > is 4 clearly >> > >> > On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < >> > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> >> > wrote: >> > > >> > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please >> > > > let me know.) >> > > > >> > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the >> > > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before >> > > > they were initiated (not resolved). >> > > > >> > > > * They were initiated on July 15 >> > > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 >> > > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, >> > > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both >> > > > effective or both ineffective) >> > > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 >> > > > >> > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so >> > > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. >> > > > >> > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it >> > would >> > > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it >> is >> > > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but >> your >> > > logic sounds valid. >> > > >> > > -Aris >> > > >> > >> > > > > -- > From V.J. Rada > -- >From V.J. Rada
