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