I should add that either way we should probably amend the rule and have a pre-decision period where non-players can be declared, to remove all ambiguity.
On 05/22/17 16:33, Kerim Aydin wrote: > > On Mon, 22 May 2017, Publius Scribonius Scholasticus wrote: >> While any individual non-player person can not begin as options, the class >> of >> non-player persons who have become options by announcement is a valid option >> from the beginning, it just begins empty. > In recent context, "announced" non-players came across *to me* as past-tense; > in other words, that you were saying everyone who had announced in the > previous > attempt was a valid vote. > > Now, sometimes I read things 100% wrong, so I'll take advice from others > reading > that; if most of you took it as a currently-empty (but forward-looking) set, > I'm happy to withdraw the CFJ because that's on me. If it's a split opinion, > it's probably too ambiguous to clearly indicate the options :). > > -G. > >
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
