On Mon, Oct 13, 2008 at 7:52 PM, Roger Hicks <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > you omitted the last part of that clause which states "where X > evaluates to FOR or AGAINST." Since I wasn't casting votes of FOR or > AGAINST, I didn't need to cast them as Llama votes.
No, the entire section is: On an Agoran decision with an adoption index, Llamas SHALL NOT cast a vote other than LLAMA (X) for some X. Even if it said "where X evaluates to FOR or AGAINST", that would just mean you would have to vote LLAMA (FOR) or LLAMA (AGAINST). Presently if you really don't want to vote Llama, you could make a new contract defining what LLAMA (PRESENT) means (since the Llama Party contract doesn't) and vote that way.
