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
The way I understand this if it's interpreted as tabling an intent to
(both start an election and become a candidate) then the tabled intent
should be invalid because intending to become a candidate is not the
same as becoming a candidate so the conditions aren't met. If it's
interpreted as (tabling intent to start election) and becoming a
candidate as a seperate action then the election then the intent is
valid and I am also a candidate.
Or if the condition only applies to actually performing the action and
not to tabling the intent to perform it then the election is valid and
trigon is the only candidate due to me missing the nomination period.
--
Cosmo
