Yeah, that's what I meant. I'm sorry if it's not all that clear - I'm doing my best, but these are my first judgments ever so I'm a bit of a newbie here. =P I hadn't thought about setting precedent here by saying it "failed", so I didn't consider my choice of words all that carefully.
On Mon, Jan 10, 2011 at 12:01 AM, omd <c.ome...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Sun, Jan 9, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Jonathan Rouillard > <jonathan.rouill...@gmail.com> wrote: >> I do not think that this was a scam, since I do not believe it was >> expected to succeed. I also do not see how this is an "abuse of other >> player's time and efforts" for that same reason. So, I think CFJ 1774 >> isn't actually relevant - or if it is, it would actually support a >> judgement of TRUE on this. At worst, I think ehird tried to vote 70 >> billion times, and failed 69,999,999,990 times - since his votes were >> later counted as FOR * 10. I'm not sure what the consequence of this >> would be, but I think it falls outside the scope of this CFJ. > > I intend, with two support, to file a Motion to-- well, I'm not a > player. I agree with the judgement, but the argument is flawed > because ehird did successfully cast 70,000,000,000 votes. Some of > those votes were invalid at the time of casting and, as it turns out, > remained invalid until the resolution of the decision, but they still > affected the gamestate because ehird's voting limit could > theoretically have been increased. >
