On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 2:05 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Did I miss an amendement? > > 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.
But section 11 doesn't actually cause any votes to be cast, it merely creates an obligation to cast them. Posting multiple sell tickets on the same decision shouldn't even be allowed, since if 2 are filled specifying different options it's impossible for the person who posted the ticket not to breach the contract, and if only 1 is filled and causes an automatic vote the person who posted the ticket will be in breach of the contract if e doesn't vote the same way with the unsold votes, but that's a matter for equity. You could argue that since casting multiple SELL votes makes no sense, it's clearly the intent of the contract that it work the way your intuition says it should work, but the rules for casting valid ballots shouldn't be considered to be superseded by the intent of a contract, as they're defined by a power 3 rule and outside the scope of the contract and beyond the reach of the equity courts.
