On Thu, 2008-10-02 at 11:25 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> 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"?
Well, apparently most of the people here, apart from root, interpreted
it as one ticket for the full power from the start. The problem is this
seems to be some sort of meta-unclarity argument; is it unclear enough
that it never worked in the first place, or is it sufficiently clear
that despite the disputes, it should work as described as the contract
says? Part of the problem is that people seem to be disagreeing as to
what the contract means, at the moment, and it's not even yet completely
established that contracts can define conditional votes in the first
place.
--
ais523
