Oh, sorry, didn't realize the first wasn't to the discussion forum.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote:
I got the first one, if that helps in any way.
Jason Cobb
On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote:
-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700
From: Edward Murphy <emurph...@zoho.com>
To: Jason Cobb <jason.e.c...@gmail.com>
Jason Cobb wrote:
I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the
margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority"
clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a
supermajority, not a majority.)
Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split
between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or
LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really
is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options).
The intent is that the effect on the case would depend on the outcome of
the decision, but not /just/ on the outcome; it would also depend on the
margin of victory. If votes were (say) AFFIRM 5 / REMAND 2 / REMIT 2,
it would say "nope, not enough consensus, case is LOGJAMMED". (It would
still use the decision mechanics because some parts, e.g. the length
of the voting period, would still make sense and thus wouldn't need to
be reinvented.)
