Given my recent attempt to "announce" OscarMeyr, I wonder if this is ambiguous? Also, in past, listing "all members of set S" without specifying the individual set members has been seen as ambiguous, IF it is beyond a reasonable effort of an average player to dig back and find that list (as opposed to the officer doing it, as it's eir job) or IF there's some uncertainty on membership (e.g. OscarMeyr).
For players, there's a handy Registrar's report to refer to, so it's not beyond a reasonable effort for average players to find that. For non-players, not so much. On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: > True, the CoE having been successful, I hereby initiate a Victory Election > with all players, announced non-players, and PRESENT as valid > options and the Herald as the vote collector. I would be in favor of all > watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting emselves into the > race. The ballots should be cast in an instant runoff format. > > ----Publius Scribonius Scholasticus > > On Mon, May 22, 2017 at 3:18 PM, Nic Evans <nich...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 05/22/17 14:03, Josh T wrote: > > > I hereby initiate a Victory Election with all players or announced > > non-players as valid options and the Herald as the vote collector. I > > would be in favor of all watchers (Ørjan and others) and G. putting > > emselves into the race. The ballots should be cast in an instant > > runoff format. > > > > I vote for the set of persons who has transferred me, during a time > > period starting from now until the closing of the voting window, a > > number of Shinies greater than ten percent of eir Shiny balance as of > > the previous Secretary report. In the event no persons will have had > > transferred me at least one Shiny, my vote is PRESENT. > > > Is there a reason everyone is still voting on this? It's definitely > invalid and I CoE'd it already: > https://www.mail-archive.com/agora-business@agoranomic.org/msg28287.html > > > >
