Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

A vote like: vote any player whose name begins w/ J, else PRESENT is
just fine and presents no problems.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:21 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> I meant ban any vote like
> 1. Jeff
> 2. PRESENT.
>
> I would count that vote as just a vote for Jeff.
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Josh T  wrote:
>> I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
>> differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
>> going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?
>>
>> 天火狐
>>
>> On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>>
>>> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
>>> about an instant runoff ballot of
>>> 1. Jeff
>>> 2. PRESENT
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
>>> wrote:
>>> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
>>> > is
>>> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
>>> > indicates
>>> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>>> >
>>> > 天火狐
>>> >
>>> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>>> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>>> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>>> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>>> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>>> >> >> replacement
>>> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
>>> >> >> first
>>> >> >> option
>>> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>>> >> >> vote doesn't
>>> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>>> >> >> majority?
>>> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
>>> >> >> definition
>>> >> >> of instant
>>> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>>> >> >> essential offices.
>>> >> >> Fun!!
>>> >> >
>>> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates
>>> >> > A..G,
>>> >> > then my
>>> >> > vote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Z:  {G, A}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>>> >> >
>>> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
>>> >> > endorsement).
>>> >> >
>>> >> > G is eliminated.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>>> >> > second
>>> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>>> >> > endorsing Z's
>>> >> > second choice, and A wins.
>>> >> >
>>> >> > Which is right, if either?
>>> >> >
>>> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and
>>> >> > Endorse
>>> >> > are
>>> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>>> >> > But
>>> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >> >
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> From V.J. Rada
>>> >
>>> >
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> From V.J. Rada
>>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

I meant ban any vote like
1. Jeff
2. PRESENT.

I would count that vote as just a vote for Jeff.

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:17 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
> differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
> going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
>> about an instant runoff ballot of
>> 1. Jeff
>> 2. PRESENT
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
>> wrote:
>> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
>> > is
>> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
>> > indicates
>> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>> >
>> > 天火狐
>> >
>> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>> >>
>> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>> >> >> replacement
>> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
>> >> >> first
>> >> >> option
>> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>> >> >> vote doesn't
>> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>> >> >> majority?
>> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
>> >> >> definition
>> >> >> of instant
>> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>> >> >> essential offices.
>> >> >> Fun!!
>> >> >
>> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>> >> >
>> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates
>> >> > A..G,
>> >> > then my
>> >> > vote:
>> >> >
>> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
>> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
>> >> >
>> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
>> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
>> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
>> >> >
>> >> > Z:  {G, A}
>> >> >
>> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>> >> >
>> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
>> >> > endorsement).
>> >> >
>> >> > G is eliminated.
>> >> >
>> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>> >> > second
>> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>> >> >
>> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>> >> > endorsing Z's
>> >> > second choice, and A wins.
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is right, if either?
>> >> >
>> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and
>> >> > Endorse
>> >> > are
>> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>> >> > But
>> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >> From V.J. Rada
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

I typed up a long response and then realized that I think we might have
differing ideas of what it means to talk about "whole votes", thus I am
going to ask; what did you mean by "count PRESENT as a whole vote"?

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 23:48, VJ Rada  wrote:

> That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
> about an instant runoff ballot of
> 1. Jeff
> 2. PRESENT
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T 
> wrote:
> > It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes
> is
> > acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote
> indicates
> > preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
> >
> > 天火狐
> >
> > On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
> >>
> >> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> >> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> >> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> >> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
> >>
> >> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> >> >> replacement
> >> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the
> first
> >> >> option
> >> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> >> >> vote doesn't
> >> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> >> >> majority?
> >> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard
> definition
> >> >> of instant
> >> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> >> >> essential offices.
> >> >> Fun!!
> >> >
> >> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >> >
> >> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> >> > then my
> >> > vote:
> >> >
> >> > P:  {A, B, C}
> >> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> >> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >> >
> >> > S:  {D, E, F}
> >> > T:  {D, E, F}
> >> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >> >
> >> > Z:  {G, A}
> >> >
> >> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >> >
> >> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1
> endorsement).
> >> >
> >> > G is eliminated.
> >> >
> >> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> >> > second
> >> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >> >
> >> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> >> > endorsing Z's
> >> > second choice, and A wins.
> >> >
> >> > Which is right, if either?
> >> >
> >> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> >> > are
> >> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> >> > But
> >> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> From V.J. Rada
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

That's a conditional, which is totally different. G's here talking
about an instant runoff ballot of
1. Jeff
2. PRESENT

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 1:38 PM, Josh T  wrote:
> It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
> acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
> preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."
>
> 天火狐
>
> On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
>> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
>> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
>> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>>
>> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
>> >> replacement
>> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first
>> >> option
>> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
>> >> vote doesn't
>> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
>> >> majority?
>> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition
>> >> of instant
>> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
>> >> essential offices.
>> >> Fun!!
>> >
>> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>> >
>> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
>> > then my
>> > vote:
>> >
>> > P:  {A, B, C}
>> > Q:  {A, B, C}
>> > R:  {A, B, C}
>> >
>> > S:  {D, E, F}
>> > T:  {D, E, F}
>> > U:  {D, E, F}
>> >
>> > Z:  {G, A}
>> >
>> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>> >
>> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
>> >
>> > G is eliminated.
>> >
>> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
>> > second
>> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>> >
>> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
>> > endorsing Z's
>> > second choice, and A wins.
>> >
>> > Which is right, if either?
>> >
>> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
>> > are
>> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
>> > But
>> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>> >
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> From V.J. Rada
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Josh T]

It sounds like having endorse or PRESENT as the tail of a list of votes is
acceptable. This allows things like "I endorse A, unless eir vote indicates
preference for B, in which case my vote is PRESENT."

天火狐

On 14 September 2017 at 19:09, VJ Rada  wrote:

> My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
> be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
> endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
> all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}
>
> On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin 
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> >> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a
> replacement
> >> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first
> option
> >> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my
> vote doesn't
> >> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the
> majority?
> >> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition
> of instant
> >> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less
> essential offices.
> >> Fun!!
> >
> > This question is also a concern for endorsements.
> >
> > Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G,
> then my
> > vote:
> >
> > P:  {A, B, C}
> > Q:  {A, B, C}
> > R:  {A, B, C}
> >
> > S:  {D, E, F}
> > T:  {D, E, F}
> > U:  {D, E, F}
> >
> > Z:  {G, A}
> >
> > Me:  {endorse Z, D}
> >
> > From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
> >
> > G is eliminated.
> >
> > So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the
> second
> > vote on my list is for D, D wins.
> >
> > But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm
> endorsing Z's
> > second choice, and A wins.
> >
> > Which is right, if either?
> >
> > The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse
> are
> > whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).
> But
> > I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> --
> From V.J. Rada
>

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

My current policy is to count PRESENT as a whole vote. Endorse can't
be a whole vote bc people keep saying things like "vote CB, else
endorse G". My current policy is to count that vote as a list of {CB,
all of G's votes in order except for the vote for CB, which is first}

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 5:00 AM, Kerim Aydin  wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a replacement
>> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first option
>> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my vote 
>> doesn't
>> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the majority?
>> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition of 
>> instant
>> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less essential 
>> offices.
>> Fun!!
>
> This question is also a concern for endorsements.
>
> Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G, then my
> vote:
>
> P:  {A, B, C}
> Q:  {A, B, C}
> R:  {A, B, C}
>
> S:  {D, E, F}
> T:  {D, E, F}
> U:  {D, E, F}
>
> Z:  {G, A}
>
> Me:  {endorse Z, D}
>
> From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).
>
> G is eliminated.
>
> So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the second
> vote on my list is for D, D wins.
>
> But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm endorsing 
> Z's
> second choice, and A wins.
>
> Which is right, if either?
>
> The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse are
> whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).  But
> I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?
>
>
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

Re: DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[VJ Rada]

not to public forum

On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 8:56 AM, Owen Jacobson  wrote:
>
>> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:22 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
>>
>> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
>>
>> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
>> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
>> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
>> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
>> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
>> 2.0.
>
> For all of the above offices that are currently occupied, I vote for the 
> incumbent.
>
> For the offices which are not occupied, I vote for [Quazie, nichdel, G., 天火狐].
>
> -o
>



-- 
>From V.J. Rada

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 13, 2017, at 7:22 PM, VJ Rada  wrote:
> 
> Please note the already ongoing election for agronomist.
> 
> I initiate the elections for and the agoran decisions for the
> determination of the Arbitor, the Superintendent, the Tailor, the
> Promotor, the Referee, the Registrar, the Surveyor, and the
> Rulekeepor. These elections are either legal under the 90 day rule or
> are vacant offices. The vote collector is the ADoP and the quorum is
> 2.0.

For all of the above offices that are currently occupied, I vote for the 
incumbent.

For the offices which are not occupied, I vote for [Quazie, nichdel, G., 天火狐].

-o



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

DIS: Re: OFF: [ADoP] You thought there was a lot of elections last time. Initiating 8 (!) elections.

[Kerim Aydin]

On Thu, 14 Sep 2017, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> I have no idea how to handle PRESENT in runoff voting.  Is it a replacement
> for the whole list, or is it an option on the list?  If it's the first option
> on a ranked voting, is PRESENT "eliminated" if it doesn't win, so my vote 
> doesn't
> end up counting towards quorum?  And what happens if PRESENT is the majority?
> is everyone else eliminated?  I'm not sure if the "standard definition of 
> instant
> runoff" covers this.   So let's test that in some slightly-less essential 
> offices.
> Fun!!

This question is also a concern for endorsements.

Take the following results votes for voters P...Z for candidates A..G, then my
vote:

P:  {A, B, C}
Q:  {A, B, C}
R:  {A, B, C}

S:  {D, E, F}
T:  {D, E, F}
U:  {D, E, F}

Z:  {G, A}

Me:  {endorse Z, D}

>From first-choices, we have A=3, D=3, G=2 (1 certain G, 1 endorsement).

G is eliminated.

So if we eliminate my first conditional choice, "endorse Z", then the second
vote on my list is for D, D wins.

But if we keep my "endorse Z" vote, and G is eliminated, then I'm endorsing Z's
second choice, and A wins.

Which is right, if either?

The only way I can really make sense of this is if PRESENT and Endorse are
whole votes (i.e. substitute for the whole list, not part of a list).  But
I'm not sure if the rules say that, or are broken?