On Tue, 2009-08-11 at 18:04 -0400, Pavitra wrote: > comex wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 5:17 PM, Ed Murphy<emurph...@socal.rr.com> wrote: > >> �1) We somehow forgot about the rising support requirement to publish > >> � � � multiple NoVs in the same week. > > > > Didn't forget. The extra NoVs were, IIRC, ILLEGAL but VALID (because > > the Rule used MAY, which is nearly always a mistake) > > No, it's a deliberate design decision: pragmatism over platonism. > > The possibility of abuse, which can be dealt with by stern punishment, > is, according to the currently prevalent Agoran political climate, far > preferable to the possibility of recordkeeping errors, which require > either Massive Gamestate Recalculation or most of the playerbase > wilfully ignoring the rules. > > For an idea of how badly platonism isn't fail-safe, look up the Annabel > Crisis, due to which ratification was invented.
And this is the actual reason the scam wasn't corrected; not because it wouldn't work, but because it would be illegal to do so. If a win is done illegally, IMO it's perfectly reasonable to reverse the win via proposal. -- ais523
