More seriously: Quazie wrote:
> Casting a vote endorsing another voter is equivalent to conditionally > casting a vote whose value is the same as the most common value (if > any) among that voter's valid votes on that decision. Casting a vote > endorsing Agora is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose > value is the same as the most common value (if any) among all votes > that have been cast on that decision. I think this would make it easier for a simple majority to hit AI > 1, unless (endorse-Agora) >= (unconditional-FOR) - (unconditional-AGAINST) in which case they would all be ineffective due to ambiguity. I don't think the circularity precedent applies to all self-endorsing votes, e.g. I think "FOR x 2, endorse myself x 1" would be unambiguously equivalent to "FOR x 3". > Casting a vote denouncing another voter is equivalent to conditionally > casting a vote whose value is opposite to the most common value (if > any) among that voter's valid votes on that decision. Casting a vote > denouncing Agora is equivalent to conditionally casting a vote whose > value is opposite to the most common value (if any) among all votes > that have been cast on that decision. FOR and AGAINST are opposites; > PRESENT is its own opposite. Similarly, I think this would either have the same net effect as a simple AGAINST, or be ineffective due to ambiguity.
