On Wed, 19 Aug 2009, ais523 wrote: > On Wed, 2009-08-19 at 17:25 -0400, comex wrote: >> Precedent says 10000 is too high, at least for CFJs :) > > Hmmm... because that creates extra recordkeepor burden? >
I think there's precedent that randomly high votes work fine (I suppose unless some critical threshold in the upper reaches makes a scam work). But it may be just that assessors haven't questioned it. In theory it may matter that a person's identical votes cast in the same way are essentially fungible (e.g. you don't generally have to specify which ballots you retract if you retract some). CFJs aren't so fungible. -G.
