We ought to at least craft up a specific fix. Wouldn't it be as simple as saying that once the adoption index is set in the initial proposal, a later increase in the adoption index cannot make it democratic?
avpx On Nov 25, 2007 3:20 PM, Ed Murphy <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > avpx wrote: > > > According to rule 106: > > "A Proposal with an Adoption Index of less than 2 is Ordinary. All > > other Proposals are Democratic." > > > > This seems fine and all, except that the powers of the Wielder of Veto > > describe (2019): > > "The Wielder of Veto CAN veto an ordinary proposal in its voting > > period by announcement; this increases its Adoption Index by 1." > > > > Putting these two together, a Proposal could be made with an AI of 1, > > and the Wielder of Veto could increase it to 2, therefore making it > > democratic. This does not seem to be the intention of a veto, however. > > I interpret this as though it is supposed to say that the Wielder of > > Veto increases the Adoption Index, but that this does not make it a > > democratic proposal, which seems to be the way it is intended. > > However, the way it is written is ambiguous. > > This is indeed a bug in Rule 106. Rule 2142 is unambiguously broken > because of this bug. > > I've been trying to fix the bug as part of "The Republic of Agora" > (which also changes the terminology used by these rules), but previous > drafts were more ambitious and got shot down for unrelated reasons. No > one has bothered to try fixing it individually. > >
