G. wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 24, 2020 at 9:44 AM Timon Walshe-Grey via agora-discussion
> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>
> > G. wrote:
> > > No deputisation needed if there's only 1 candidate, R2154:
> > >
> > > > If at any point an uncontested election has a single candidate,
> > > > then any player CAN by announcement declare em the winner of the
> > > > election, thereby causing em to win the election.
> >
> > You're correct, but doing it that way wouldn't discharge Murphy's
> > obligation to resolve it (leaving em REQUIRED to do something that's no
> > longer POSSIBLE), which seems a little unfair. Also, more to the point,
> > it wouldn't get me any cyan glitter. :P
>
> Which REQUIREMENT are you talking about? It's pretty clear to me that
> the clauses (1) and (2) in R2154 are written to absolve the ADoP from
> the duty if it's no longer POSSIBLE (but if my reading is wrong and
> it's broken, pls. explain as it should be fixed).
Oh, hmm, you might be right. I initially interpreted it as
(∃t: P(t)) ⇒ (∀s≥t: R(s))
but yeah, I suppose it could also be seen as
∀t: (P(t) ⇒ R(t))
where
P(t) means that, at time t, it is POSSIBLE to end the election early;
R(t) means that, at time t, the ADoP is REQUIRED to end the election
early if e hasn't already.
It all depends on whether "If POSSIBLE" means "If currently POSSIBLE"
or "If POSSIBLE when the requirement was created". I don't see that it's
100% unambiguous, but your reading definitely wins on "common sense" and
"best interests of the game".
Point about glitter stands, though. Not that it's worth terribly much,
but it's a non-zero amount and I don't see any other incentives either
way.
-twg
