Mischief wrote:
On 3/16/26 5:36 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-discussion wrote:
On 3/16/26 17:35, Mischief via agora-discussion wrote:
On 3/16/26 4:59 PM, Janet Cobb via agora-business wrote:
I vote [ais523, Janet] in the ongoing Prime Minister election.
Is this considered sufficiently clear to become a candidate by
announcement?
At face value, I don't know if it meets R478's "both clearly and
unambiguously" test. (If there's existing precedent, though, that could
swing things the other way.)
Well, for what it's worth, I certainly didn't intend to become one.
I CFJ on the statement: Janet is a candidate in the ongoing Prime
Minister election
Arguments
=========
I believe the following facts are undisputed:
1. There is an ongoing election for Prime Minister, and it is still
possible to become a candidate by announcement
2. Janet had not, prior to voting, become a candidate in this election
3. Janet cast a vote in the election that, at face value, considered
emself a candidate
Does casting a vote for oneself pass the hurdles required by rules 2154
("any player CAN become a candidate by announcement") and 478 (excerpted
below)?
Where the rules define an action that a person CAN perform "by
announcement", that person performs that action by, in a single
public message, specifying the action and setting forth intent to
perform that action by sending that message, doing both clearly
and unambiguously.
Janet later clarified that e did not intend to become a candidate, but
that may not be relevant here. If I intend to vote FOR proposal A and
AGAINST proposal B, but by mistake write it the other way around in my
message, the actual message trumps the intent. Likewise, if I specify an
unintended but valid recipient when transferring assets, my transfer
would still stand.
(Note: Janet's clarification was not sent to a public forum, so if eir
vote did make em a candidate, the clarification did not subsequently
satisfy R2154's mechanism for ceasing to be a candidate by announcement)
Gratuituous:
Rule 2528 (Voting Methods) says that, for an instant runoff decision,
"the ordered lists of entities" are valid votes. It doesn't require
those entities to be valid options.
Rule 955 (Determining the Will of Agora) explicitly accounts for the
possibility that some entities aren't valid options (though arguably it
assumes that they were at one point):
If an entity that is part of a valid vote is not a valid option at
the end of the voting period, or disqualified by the rule
providing for the decision, then that entity is eliminated prior
to the first round of counting.
--
[ANSC H:GE]
