On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 5:33 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > Specifically, anything that is interpreted as a valid ballot must be > interpreted > as satisfying clause R683(b). And to "clearly identify" something you must > acknowledge it. And I'll further say, lest you use the "one level of > indirection" argument, that one identifies the decision by identifying the > proposal, as that's the only referent (proposal numbers) that we generally use > for decisions to adopt proposals.
Not the one that I used: "I vote FOR on all Agoran Decisions in their voting period." But my main argument is that, however Agora decides to interpret the message within the context of existing gamestate (in this case, as referring to the decision to adopt the unacknowledgeable proposal), my message could have been sent, and had a reasonable effect, at any time in the last few years-- so how was sending it at that particular time acknowledging the existence of anything?
