On Mon, 20 Oct 2008, Alex Smith wrote: > It's now possible to become a member of the PNP by, and only by, > performing an action in PerlNomic that causes activity. All such actions > require knowledge of the member in question's PerlNomic username and > password, and active free will by someone to enter them into PerlNomic > and perform the action. I would argue that if someone guessed Warrigal's > password and entered it, that would not automatically cause Warrigal to > become a member of the contract (and thus the PNP's announcement to the > PF of the change would be ineffective), but if ihope deliberately does > something in PerlNomic, such as voting, that causes activation (with > full knowledge of the consequences, as e has), then they do become party > to the contract. This is basically the same reasoning as Goethe's > judgement, and thus I won't appeal it merely because it's based on > invalid data; if Goethe thinks that this makes a material difference, > then I will support an appeal if e initiates it.
Thanks ais523, you know I almost asked for confirmation of the contract, but then just didn't. In any case, I don't think it changes my argument: if an action is taken with knowledge, it can cause joining, if not, not. So in the general case, UNDETERMINED. -Goethe
