Sgeo wrote:
>>> 6351 D 2 2.0 C-walker <none>
>>>
>> AGAINST (Please also secure ceasing to be a Senator if you're going to
>> secure becoming a Senator.)
> I change my vote on 6351 to AGAINST, for the same reason.
Following the precedent of CFJ 2577, this is ineffective; you have to
retract and recast. Pavitra wrote, in eir intent to appeal CFJ 2577:
> In particular, I would like the judge to set the precedent that, when a
> person attempts Y, and Y is superficially impossible but it's obvious
> that e should have done Z to achieve the intended effect ("That doesn't
> work. You want to do Z."), and there is only one Z that could achieve
> the intent of Y, and said intent is clear and unambiguous, then Y is a
> synonym for Z.
but, if this precedent is set, then scamsters who don't get their
scam quite right will use it as a defense, which would be an
unfortunate lowering of the bar for successful scams. Specific
legitimate cases should be defined in the rules, e.g.
Proposal: Changing votes
(AI = 3, please)
Amend Rule 683 (Voting on Agoran Decisions) by replacing this text:
(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
voting period.
with this text:
(d) The voter has not publicly retracted the ballot during the
voting period. ("Changing" a vote is equivalent to retracting
it and casting a vote with the new value.)
I intend, without objection, to make this distributable.
