Goethe wrote:
On Sat, 22 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
2) 1048576 is such a huge number in context that it could be interpreted
as an implicit "most of these will be invalid" disclaimer. (A player
who intentionally casts just a few more votes than eir voting limit
would be more likely to slip it past the Assessor's notice; this
would be a greater breach of trust than a player who at least wears
eir laziness on eir sleeve, though it might be difficult in practice
to demonstrate intent.)
I'm sorry, but this is absolutely ridiculous. If this argument passes
muster, I will personally lie and exaggerate about every game event and
let you sort it out. -Goethe
I'm not saying that it's good, merely that it could be worse. And if
your lies and exaggerations were similarly obvious, then they wouldn't
be /that/ troublesome.
I'm also playing devil's advocate up front, in an attempt to preempt
appeals on the grounds of "you didn't consider X".
Rule 2149 could be extended to cover misrepresentation as well as
perjury, with a test CFJ and subsequent rule annotation to hold up
"knowingly casting a vote beyond one's voting limit without noting
that it will be invalidated" as the canonical example.
