On Thu, Oct 2, 2008 at 12:25, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 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 > That is how I would interpret it.
BobTHJ
