On 6/17/25 12:25 PM, Trigon via agora-business wrote:
On 6/17/25 5:57 AM, Mischief via agora-business wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement: there is an election for Promotor in
progress, and Trigon is a candidate in that election.
Arguments:
Cosmo tabled an intent to start an election for Promotor and become a
candidate in it, as one combined action [1]. Trigon tried to use Cosmo's
intent to do likewise for emself [2]. However, the tabled intent was for
Cosmo to become a candidate, not Trigon.
I suspect both clauses of the statement have the same truth value.
However, in the event there is an election but Trigon is not a candidate,
I hope the judge makes it clear in eir arguments (to distinguish it from
the case where there is no election at all).
Gratuitous for TRUE:
From rule 2651/1, "A player CAN initiate an election for a specified
elected office... [w]ith 2 support... provided that the initiator becomes a
candidate in the same message."
Admittedly, there is some ambiguity here, but I argue that there is one most
sensible reading of this rule due to the way it is worded. The tabled intent
includes only initiating an election for an office. Becoming a candidate is
a separate action that must be taken in the same message as an additional
condition for completion of the tabled intent. In this way, the identity of
the "initiator" is not embedded into the intent, it is determined at the
time the tabled action completes.
That's a reasonable reading. I wonder, though, if that makes the original
tabled intent invalid. An intent to do (X and Y) is not equivalent to an
intent to do X. There are possible readings to make it okay in this case --
it is necessary to perform Y in conjunction with X for this method. Also,
eir original wording could be construed as something like (an intent to do
X) and then do Y
That should give the judge something to ponder
--
Mischief
Collector, Illuminator, Notary, Prime Minister
Hat: steampunk hat
Vitality: ghostly
Bang holdings: 0
