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




Reply via email to