On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 12:51 AM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> > 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.
>
> Well, I disagree with that. It is unreasonable to allow X as an
> "administrative convenience" shorthand for Y if nobody, not even the
> administrators, know what Y is.
Well you're right. It's non-ideal. But if we consider any sort of "I
vote for all" or "I object to all" then we have the following choices:
1. Disallow it entirely.
2. Allow it entirely, including for future-discovered (platonic) ones.
3. Figure out which ones the sender reasonably should "know about" at the
time of sending and apply it to those only.
4. Disallow the whole thing retroactively if it turns out there was one
no-one knew about. (ugh).
None of these are ideal. I think #2 is cleaner as (when one of these is
discovered) it probably involves recalculating for everyone, anyway. I
generally dislike going doing the "who knew about what when" path. But I
admit this is all personal preference and after browsing I can't find any
relevant court cases. I note that for your actual votes in this situation,
it doesn't apply because it wasn't undiscovered and it's reasonable to say
that everyone voting "should have" known about it.
It's also worth noting that it's hard to have a proposal out there in its
voting period without passing the "most people should know about this"
test. And we've also acknowledged the problem without facing it, because
whenever someone issues an overly broad conditional (such as your recent
ribbon awarding? :) ) everyone admits it's a pain in the rear amd gets
annoyed, but seems to agree that the right thing to do is figure out what
the conditional applies to in a platonic sense.
> ...How do fungible assets fit into this scheme?
"I transfer all my assets to the bank and then deregister". There's
some precedents here, but unfortunately, those precedents were for when
assets were more strictly controlled and the rules came out and said you
had to be very specific. That's not in the Rules anymore.
-G.
