Assume that Kevan legally created this proposal.  If this is the case, then by “Dead Men Tell No Tales” I can infer that this post does not reveal any information that Kevan “learned, made up, or other wise acquired about another villager”.  However, this inference of mine is information about Kevan that was not revealed before he became dead, and I was only able to obtain this information because Kevan posted this Proposal.  Thus, this post is not legal under “Dead Men Tell No Tales”, contrary to our hypothetical assumption.

Since ((P -> ~P) -> ~P) is a tautology, and for P=“this proposal is legal”, we have shown (P -> ~P), we can conclude that this proposal is not legal.

lol, interesting…

By your own logic, Kevan is only revealing information about Kevan.  I hardly think he counts himself as “another Villager.”

No, but it is “relevant information about himself that was not revealed before he became dead”.

In that case, your logic means that no Dead player can post, comment, admin, alter the GNDT, or otherwise participate in BlogNomic in any way. Yes?

Basically.  Which is why it’s a ridiculous rule to have around, especially considering that we’re probably only going to sometimes enforce it.  And there aren’t really any consequences listed for breaking the “Dead Men” rule.  It’s just illegal.  And around here, illegal “actions” don’t alter the Gamestate.

Why not propose an altered wording along the lines of “explicitly” or “directly” revealing, then?  I’d do it myself, but as you’ve pointed out…

COV for the sole purpose of stalling the proposal queue.

Thank you!