On Thu, 2 Oct 2008, Geoffrey Spear wrote: > 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.
But the problem is section 13 doesn't specify "cast a single vote" it specifies "voting" in general. Therefore a section 13 ticket action of (endorse or Y) is in fact a subclass of a section 11 specification to vote in a certain manner, and therefore by default involves the whole voting limit. This would make it (as you say) not possible to fill more than one section 13 ticket, either. Whether or not that's what's intended or assumed, that's what's written. -Goethe
