On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, ais523 wrote: > On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:05 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: >> This version: >> http://www.agoranomic.org/cgi-bin/mailman/private/agora-business/2008-September/013955.html >> >> has Section 11 votes so that a Sell Ticket is a ticket to vote up to one's >> voting power; under that section more than one ticket is against the contract >> or impossible to fill (and the x5 is redundant or informational to indicate >> the >> worth of the voting limit). >> >> Section 13 votes (SELL X-Y) that include an option fit your model. >> >> By not having Y I think BobTHJs vote's fit the section 11 model. > > No, I don't think you missed an amendement, but I (and I assumed > everyone else until this message) treated BobTHJ's votes as a section 13 > vote with Y missing. Section 13 explicitly allows Y to be missing, and > defaults it to PRESENT if it is. Section 11 (under which your Sell > Ticket fell) doesn't define a sort of Sell Ticket at all, but instead > merely mentions what happens if someone creates a ticket referencing an > Agoran Decision.
Okay then, here's my question. A section 13 is still a (conditional) offer to vote in a certain way on an agoran decision (Endorse or otherwise). As such, don't section 13 tickets still fall under the section 11's default requirement that a single ticket represent a player's "full voting power"? In other words, doesn't this make any attempt to split votes and sell multiple tickets for one decision a "non-default" option, so that the burden is on sellers like root (who intend to split) to be abundantly and absolutely clear as to their intent, whereas in the case of unclarity it should default to "one ticket for the full voting power"? -Goethe
