==============================  CFJ 2224  ==============================

    Taral directly or indirectly voted for someone in the most recent
    Mad Scientist election.


Caller:                                 Taral

Judge:                                  Sir Toby

Judge:                                  omd
Judgement:                              FALSE



Called by Taral:                        13 Oct 2008 22:00:22 GMT
Assigned to Sir Toby:                   16 Oct 2008 05:52:41 GMT
Sir Toby recused:                       30 Oct 2008 08:07:07 GMT
Assigned to omd:                        30 Oct 2008 08:08:03 GMT
Judged FALSE by omd:                    30 Oct 2008 22:13:25 GMT


Caller's Arguments:

I am not a party to the Vote Market. As such, it cannot
control or delegate my votes.


Judge omd's Arguments:

This is a common misconception.  The Vote Market does not control or
delegate anyone's votes.  In fact, SELL (2VP) is not a vote, not even
a conditional one.  "Voting SELL" is a convenient abbreviation, but as
the Vote Market explicitly states, SELL(X) is just shorthand:
   SELL(X - Y) is shorthand for such a Sell Ticket, with a cost of X
   and a vote of Y if the ticket is not filled;
That is to say, purporting to vote SELL(X - Y) is exactly equivalent to
"I post a Sell Ticket, with a cost of X.  I conditionally vote as
follows: (Endorse the filler of that Sell Ticket if it was filled, or
Y if it was not filled) times my voting limit."
(Spot the bug?  It exists in the VM as far as I can tell.  But that's
not relevant to this case.)

Which would be a perfectly reasonable shorthand (since there is no
competing definition of a SELL pseudovote, nor any indication that
Taral *wasn't* using the Vote Market definition) if the Vote Market
allowed nonparties to post Sell Tickets.  Unfortunately it doesn't, so
the Sell Ticket wasn't posted and I'd say the conditional vote was too
ambiguous to be effective.  FALSE.


Judge omd's Evidence: