On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, comex wrote: > On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 2:07 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > > 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. > > Well... I don't think #2 is a valid option; or rather, if we use #2 > (which we always have), it's not fair to call it purely an > administrative convenience; we have to accept that the transformation > of "all proposals" into "P7000, P7001, P7002" is happening at a deeper > level than language or dialect transformations.
Well, it's a mapping. So yes it's deeper. The administrative convenience is that we allow such mapping in the first place. What makes it into the "convenience" rather than "absolute" category is that (since it's not strongly rules-governed) it can be discarded if the "deeper level mapping" causes contradictions, etc. > Assuming a legalistic point of view (not reasonable observer), for me > to acknowledge something's existence is to state that it exists; thus, > a person who did not previously know that it existed, if I did > acknowledge it, would find out after reading my message. In fact, > that is the case, assuming that e looked up relevant distributions of > proposals to find out what I was voting on. However, the set of > proposals e would find (and so the set of proposals I acknowledged) > might differ from the set of proposals that the message is effective > in voting for, if "common opinion" were wrong about some relevant > fact. > > Does this make sense? Yes, it makes perfect sense, that legalistically one can "identify" by providing a mapping without "acknowledging" that a particular proposal belongs to the mapping. I think it's a version of the Sir Humphrey logic I posted a bit ago. As opposed to what I'm saying, that in a R683 context, one should take identifying and acknowledging as synonymous. Or one could go further, and turn into a preponderance of the evidence case: "comex does not typically vote like that (evidence of past voting record) so eir vote is evidence that e was acknowledging an odd proposal, which the preponderance of the evidence suggests must be that one." As I said then, I'm uncertain, but I think the direction one goes here is within reasonable discretion of a judge either way (certainly I agree now it's not as clear-cut as I made it sound in my judgement, when it felt more obvious to me). Again, it would be good if a third opinion jumped in :). -G.
