On Mon, 20 Dec 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > G. wrote: > > On Sun, 19 Dec 2010, Ed Murphy wrote: > > > >> Detail: http://zenith.homelinux.net/cotc/viewcase.php?cfj=2918a > >> > >> ================= Appeal 2918a (Interest Index = 0) ================== > > > > REMAND. > > > > Arguments: if this is to hold, please explain why/how it's reasonable to > > make this interpretation. For my own opinion for example, it never > > occurred to me that the defendant's interpretation should be the correct > > one. > > IIRC e misremembered the clause as "spend X ergs to increase your > voting power by 2X on some set of proposals", not "on one proposal" > (where the set might be "all proposals currently in their voting > period" or "all proposals distributed at once" etc.). This would > lead em to believe that e only needed to spend 2 ergs (which e did > have at the time) rather than 12.
The question is not whether it was a generally easy mistake to make, there's a lot of easy mistakes to make that are patently illegal! If I misremember a SHALL as SHALL NOT? (But in any case, my own opinion is just that the remand should discuss it, not that it's wrong).
