On Wed, Sep 2, 2009 at 1:42 PM, ais523<callforjudgem...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote: > Gratuitous: You are mistaking the meaning of "reasonable opportunity". > The meaning in R101 implies, to me, that it's reasonable to conclude > that the player would have had the opportunity no matter what the > circumstances; it's generally impossible to platonically conclude > whether someone had the opportunity or not, but it's certainly possible > to conclude whether it's reasonable to believe that they did; and it's > unreasonable to conclude that any PNP party (apart from comex, who > proposed the change) definitely would have had a reasonable opportunity > to review the change even if (like, presumably, Pavitra or Darth Cliche > is) they weren't online at the time.
Gratuitous: That's not what the rule says at all. The rule says "reasonable opportunity" to distinguish a reasonable from an unreasonable opportunity. An unreasonable opportunity might be, for example, posting the link on IRC then making the change a second later, or burying it halfway down a report, or requiring you to pay me 400zm before I would show you the contract. Waiting for a vote against a very simple proposal is, on the other hand, a reasonable opportunity. It is also reasonable and was reasonable at the time to believe that you had the opportunity. Admittedly, it is not reasonable to conclude that you had the opportunity if we ignore all circumstances and look only at the timing, but it's also unreasonable to conclude that you had the opportunity to review it if we ignore the fact that you're a human being, and I don't see any reason to do one over the other. -- -c.
