On 5/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
These two don't work together. (d) only makes sense if you're applying
these conditions at (or after) the end of the voting period. (e) needs
to be applied at the time the vote is cast.
I was hoping people wouldn't notice that they lose *all* their votes
if they cast too many, bwa ha ha.
This is unnecessary. The defaults that you've set imply this already,
provided that everything else that sets VLOP refers to the default rather
than an explicit "one".
I really don't understand why people are afraid of the tiniest bit
of redundancy in the rules. Where we have irredundancy, it will
come back to haunt us.
Stop messing about: set it to Unanimity. Or, after "reintroduce
indices", positive infinity, since quorum is a count rather than a ratio.
The maximum objection index of Unanimity should also be positive infinity,
for the same reason.
First, there is a difference between N + 1 and Unanimity, since
players could register and help bring something to quorum (one would
probably require at least two, since the Speaker is unlikely to vote
on something e vetoes).
Second, ``Reintroduce indices'' specifically defines Unanimity as a
synonym for the maximum element of the extended real numbers, so
there's no reason to use the term ``positive infinity'' where
``unanimity'' will do.
Third, I'd like to know the historical reasons for why the Speaker's
veto doesn't just kill the proposal.
--
C. Maud Image (Michael Slone)
Well, it's succinct, at least.
-- Kelly, in agora-discussion
