On Fri, 21 Nov 2008, comex wrote: > Scams are and have been rendered ineffective for the most trivial > reasons (annotations, decrease by -1), yet anti-scams with glaring > mistakes are considered effective?
Burden of proof does tend to lie with scammers against what Agora generally "intended and thought" (I for one thought decrease by -1 should have worked). In this case, as I said, I was sure that there was an intent to disqualify ordinary votes and the proposal/decision switch was secondary in meaning of purpose. I think the AI/power thing should have been in your favor too (from your description, I don't remember noticing it when it happened). For buying votes typod by a number, it might depend on whether you quoted the posted sell ticket or just announced that you bought it without context? An ID-number mistake, where ID-numbers are the primary means of identifying proposals (CFJ I-forget-which) is in fact a substantial difference in meaning (was it obvious which digit was typoed? Maybe we should use Gray Code for ID numbers). For the current case, the judge obviously had the same clarity in what was meant as I did, and I accept that it made you look at the rules twice in puzzlement. I'd support some sort of general polling through Agora to see whether "a range of reasonable Agorans" were confused. -Goethe
