Hmm, the key part is "conditionally", the "last part" shouldn't be separated from that. When you say "endorse", the key thing about defining it to be "conditional" is to ensure it's evaluated at the end of the voting period.
If you just say "I vote as G. does" that to me reads like voting the same as my current vote, which wouldn't change if I changed my current vote. I don't think there's anything in "I vote as G. does" that makes it sound conditional. (aside: I have a lot of duties piled up, might take until tomorrow to get to them, apologies). On Tue, 26 Sep 2017, Ørjan Johansen wrote: > I CFJ on the statement: > > In the below quoted message, VJ Rada endorsed G. > > Argument: Rule 2127 states > > Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to > conditionally casting a vote whose value is the same as the most > common value (if any) among that voter's valid votes on that > decision. > > It seems to me that VJ Radas votes are equivalent to what's stated in the last > part of that, and thus are endorsements. > > Greetings, > Ørjan. > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017, VJ Rada wrote: > > > I vote as G. does. > > > > On Mon, Sep 25, 2017 at 4:01 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Sun, 24 Sep 2017, Aris Merchant wrote: > > > > 7899* G. 2.0 Arbitor's Union G. 1 AP > > > > 7900* o 2.0 Come What May o 1 AP > > > > 7901* o, [1] 3.0 Make Your Home Shine o 6 sh. > > > > 7902* G. 1.0 Switch no-ops G. 1 AP > > > > 7903* G. 2.0 Numerical switches v2 G. 1 AP > > > > 7904* G., 天火狐 1.0 Such is Karma v2 Aris 1 AP > > > > > > I vote FOR all of these. -G. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > From V.J. Rada > > >
