On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 6:10 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > If the ballot wasn't accepted, by the facts of the time of sending, as clearly > identifying the specific decision in question (among others), it shouldn't > have > been accepted as a valid ballot for that decision. R683 is one of those > places > that by using "clearly identifying" we require that level of specificity. > It's > a straight-up requirement of being a ballot.
I could have voted FOR through blanket vote without even knowing the proposal existed. Indeed, before this message, I never actually stated that I /did/ know it existed, although you might have guessed it from my behavior. Making whether a specific message is a public acknowledgement depend on my state of mind at the time I sent it is rather dangerous. The difference is that, while, for Agoran purposes, my message-- every message-- is parsed platonically with perfect knowledge of the gamestate, "acknowledgement" only makes sense in the context of incomplete knowledge-- in this case, basic knowledge of Agoran terminology to parse the message, but not specific information on proposals. > You can't identify without > acknowledging, and additionally, the only way to identify/acknowledge the > decision is to identify/acknowledge the proposal (the decision has no other > unique characteristics for identification purposes). I can give you all my chits even if they have /no/ unique characteristics for identification purposes.
