Actually, I just noticed and (if we accept those CFJs) there should be three invalid votes as opposed to four. One of those CFJs invalidated "I do the same as the last four people in this thread" but someone else voted identically but replacing four with three.
On Wed, Aug 1, 2018 at 1:58 PM, Aris Merchant < thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > G. contested those, with supporting logic affixed, which is why this case > exists. It wasn't an attempt to get around an appeal, either, if you look > at the justification. > > -Aris > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:57 PM Rebecca <edwardostra...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Given the 2 uncontested cfjs ruling the votes at issue invalid, the > answer > > is 4 clearly > > > > On Wed., 1 Aug. 2018, 1:55 pm Aris Merchant, < > > thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Tue, Jul 31, 2018 at 8:50 PM Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > (I may be overlooking any number of things here; if I am, please > > > > let me know.) > > > > > > > > Per Rule 879, quorum on these decisions was N-2, where N was the > > > > number of players who voted on the last proposal decision before > > > > they were initiated (not resolved). > > > > > > > > * They were initiated on July 15 > > > > * Last proposal decision resolved before that was 8057 on July 1 > > > > * Players voting on that decision were Murphy, Aris, V.J. Rada, > > > > twg, PSS, ATMunn, and possibly Trigon and Corona (either both > > > > effective or both ineffective) > > > > * V.J. Rada's loss of voting power didn't start till July 15 > > > > > > > > Thus, I believe the statement is FALSE; N was either 6 or 8, so > > > > quorum on 8066 et al was either 4 or 6. > > > > > > > > That doesn't resolve the question of whether it was 4 or 6, and it > > would > > > be helpful to find out. It's not with in the explicit mandate, but it > is > > > within the scope of controversy. I haven't checked the details, but > your > > > logic sounds valid. > > > > > > -Aris > > > > > > -- >From V.J. Rada
