Goethe wrote:
On Thu, 6 Dec 2007, Ed Murphy wrote:
In CFJ 1813, Goethe argued that VVLOP is defined as a "parameter",
implicitly treated as a number, but could also be interpreted as a set
of numbers (added up whenever the value of VVLOP is queried).
Nice one, completely ignoring a precedent and calling a new case to
reverse it. Even less respect than Wooble, there... at least join em
in the appeal. -G.
What precedent am I ignoring? As I understand it, the judgement of
CFJ 1813 amounts to:
1) Spending 0 VCs works
2) Decreasing VVLOP by -1 works
3) But win by voting power depends on EVLOP, and the increased
VVLOP hadn't yet been copied to EVLOP at the time the win
was claimed, so the claim was unsuccessful
and 3) alone is enough to rule 1813 FALSE, which is why I didn't
join Wooble's appeal. I'm instead disputing 2), on the grounds
that treating VVLOP as an implicit set is too big a stretch.
