I vote [Aris, G.]. Why is no one voting for me? As far as I can tell, I have a stronger platform (well, at least I had a platform) and am currently more active. I’m really confused, TBH.
-Aris On Sun, Jun 2, 2019 at 7:30 PM James Cook <[email protected]> wrote: > In the ongoing election for Prime Minister, I vote [G., Aris]. > > On Sun, 2 Jun 2019 at 12:29, D Margaux <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > I temporarily deputise for ADoP to initiate an election for Prime > Minister (for reals this time). > > > > The valid options are G., Corona, and Aris. > > > > The vote collector is the ADoP and the voting method is instant runoff. > > > > > > > On Jun 2, 2019, at 4:56 AM, Reuben Staley <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > JUDGEMENT OF A CFJ WITH NO ID > > > =============================== > > > > > > Whereas there is not much I feel I can add to the Caller's Arguments, > I accept them and judge this CFJ TRUE. > > > > > >> On 5/30/19 12:57 PM, D. Margaux wrote: > > >> I assign this CFJ to Trigon (the only judge who is both eligible and > not an interested party). > > >> Begin forwarded message: > > >>> From: D Margaux <[email protected]> > > >>> Date: May 28, 2019 at 9:49:13 AM EDT > > >>> To: Agora Business <[email protected]> > > >>> Subject: CFJ re Prime Minister Election > > >>> > > >>> I call for judgement, and submit to the Referee (because the Arbitor > is an interested party), the following statement: “The ADoP did not > EFFECTIVELY commence any election for the office of Prime Minister on 19 > May 2019.” > > >>> > > >>> Caller’s Arguments: > > >>> > > >>> Under Rule 104, a notice initiating an Agoran decision is “invalid” > unless it contains “[a] clear description of the valid options.” On 19 May > 2019, the ADoP sent two messages purporting to initiate an election for > Prime Minister, but neither of those messages clearly described the valid > options as required by rule. Therefore no PM election was commenced. > > >>> > > >>> In the first attempt,[1] Murphy stated that “the valid options are > the candidates (G. and Corona).” That did not clearly state the valid > options because Aris was also a candidate. > > >>> > > >>> In the second attempt,[2] Murphy stated that “Aris may also be a > candidate” and that, “[i]f voting for Prime Minister is not yet open, then > I open it (details as below except Aris is also a candidate).” That > message did not clearly identify the valid options, because it stated only > that Aris *may* be a candidate, not that e *was* a candidate. Additionally, > that message initiated an election *conditioned* on the old election being > invalid; as a result, a reasonable Agoran reading that message in isolation > would be unable to determine whether the PM election was initiated by > message [1] or [2], and therefore could not know what the “valid options” > were. In my view, that means that message [2] did not contain “[a] clear > description of the valid options.” > > >>> > > >>> Because neither message clearly described the valid options, both > messages failed to initiate an election under Rule 104. > > >>> > > >>> —— > > >>> [1] > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg33821.html > > >>> > > >>> [2] > https://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg33823.html > > >>> > > > > > > -- > > > Trigon >
