On Wed, 4 Oct 2017, Alexis Hunt wrote:
> On Tue, 3 Oct 2017 at 19:00 Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
> > I CFJ on the following by paying a shiny:
> > If grok had not deregistered, e would have issued trust tokens to
> > both Aris and G. by eir vote on Proposal 7899.
>
>
> This is CFJ 3569 - I assign it to Alexis.
>
>
> Does anyone else have any arguments as to why or why not any specific outcome
> is correct?
Well after the fact I came up with arguments on multiple sides.
For only awarding to Aris:
Obviously an Endorse vote isn't talking about the final value,
which would be TRUE/FALSE/PRESENT. So you don't evaluate at
all. You say: Is grok's vote "Endorse X" and did X vote? Yes?
Then that person (Aris) gets a Trust token and you're done.
For awarding both:
It's perfectly reasonable to evaluate as follows:
while (vote == Endorse X and X has cast a valid vote){
give X a trust token;
set vote to X's vote;
}
This gives trust tokens to everyone in the chain.
For awarding neither:
Trust tokens are broken, since conditionals always evaluate to
TRUE/FALSE/PRESENT, there's never a vote with an evaluated
value of "Endorse X".
Unfortunately I couldn't think of an argument for only G. getting one.
Hope this helps!
(Really, I think the rules are utterly silent on this and the only
reason I could find to favor one is that the "everyone gets one"
allows for possibly funner gameplay of setting up endorsement chains).
