On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote: > Hi, > > I was reading the rules before registering and came across something > I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was > going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be > the only one who doesn't understand this). > > First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a > switch (called n), and the negation of them (without objection, > consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it > be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in > the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I > must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these > cases?
It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections. > And lastly, are all actions "without objections" bound to have no > objections before taking them? (See cleanliness, for example). For a "without 1 objection" action (typically abbreviated to "without objection"), if anyone objected to the intent, then the action could not be performed. For an action with an easier requirement, such as "without 3 objections", there could be up to 2 objections to an intent without making the action impossible to perform. -- ais523
