On Thu, 12 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 8:12 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > So what I'm saying is: if you allow those administrative conveniences > > to create legal fictions of individual cast ballots > > So, you're saying, the situation is as if I said "For each decision in > the list of decisions which a reasonable person would think currently > exist, (and I do hereby quasi-incorporate that list), I vote FOR on > it"...
Naw, I think the legal fiction can be platonic. It's a weird state where practically there can be a proposal you don't know about, but legally you can be deemed to have acknowledged it by specifying the full set. Note: in this discussion I haven't changed my mind, but it's certainly made me realize that perhaps a third opinion (new CFJ?) may be in order. > Have we ever had a CFJ about a conditional or mass action where the > recordkeepors were mistaken about the gamestate, so that everyone > thought it had effect X, but platonically it would have effect Y? I can't think of one offhand. -G.
