Goethe wrote:
I CFJ on the following statement (criminal case): comex has violated
Rule 2149 in his communication of voting on proposal 5375.
Arguments: comex has stated specifically in the past that e does not
believe that e has huge numbers of ordinary votes, nor would any reasonable
person. So e has made a false representation of eir voting power with
a demonstrated lack of belief in eir truthfulness on the matter. If
found guilty, I request that eir repeat offenses and lack of respect
for recordkeepors in light of eir own laziness in looking up records
be brought into account during sentencing.
Gratuituous arguments:
1) Rule 683 says that votes beyond one's voting limit are invalid, but
does not explicitly say that they are not votes. Furthermore, comex
did not explicitly claim that eir votes would be valid.
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.)
