On Tue, 25 Jun 2013, omd wrote: > On Tue, Jun 25, 2013 at 8:27 PM, The UNDEAD <theagoranund...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I do not register. I propose repealing rule 327. > > Well... even though there are supposed to be a few days left, I don't > want to delay this further lest someone else beat me to it :) > > I invoke judgement on the statement "The legality of The UNDEAD's > attempted proposal cannot be determined with finality." > > I submit that either I or my brother sent this message, but I won't > reveal which one. My brother is not a Voter, so the move is legal iff > I was the one who sent it.
Was thinking about this, it's interesting that this win attempt goes along with our earlier discussion on legal versus mathematical. In a mathematical sense, one could say that it was "equally likely or unlikely" that omd sent the message based applying the principle of indifference to omd's claim. But in a legal sense, one must establish where the burden of proof lies. So far, the default assumption has been "assume each new email address is from a different person". Omd questions the default assumption, but with testimony that does not sufficiently establish a preponderance of evidence. Therefore, stick with the default assumption (that the message came from someone other than omd). I'd say at least one earlier judgement went along with pragmatic intent rather than mathematical formalism, but interesting that this is basically a "game worldview" decision for the win. -G.
