On 1/4/2022 9:44 PM, ais523 via agora-discussion wrote:
> For reference:
> {{{
> The voting strength of an entity on an Agoran decision is an
> integer between 0 and 15 inclusive, defined by rules of power 2
> or greater. If not otherwise specified, the voting strength of
> an entity on an Agoran decision is 3.
>
> When multiple rules set or modify an entity's voting strength on
> an Agoran decision, it shall be determined by first applying the
> rule(s) which set it to a specific value, using the ordinary
> precedence of rules, and then applying the rules, other than
> this one, which modify it, in numerical order by ID. Finally, if
> the result of the calculation is not an integer, it is rounded
> up, and then if it is outside the allowable range of values for
> voting strength, it is set to the minimum value if it was less
> and the maximum value if it was more.
> }}}
>
> Any suggestions?
>
> We could attempt to give the Device voting strength, but unfortunately
> that wouldn't actually do anything; only players can vote (R683), and
> it's secured at power 2 (R2422). In fact, I think the Device
> technically has voting strength even under the current rules, it just
> doesn't do anything.
That's definitely interesting on its own (irrespective of the device) I'd
forgotten all entities have voting strength though can't cast ballots.
Furthermore, it's not clear to me (at all) that R683 precludes
lower-powered rules from defining methods for non-persons voting.
One question I'm totally unsure is how to treat a compound term of art in
terms of nouns - would a replacement involving "voting strength" be
"device" or "voting device"? Anyway, how about this one, it's about the
only thing I see that isn't nullified by the power issue:
> If not otherwise specified, the device of an entity on an
> Agoran decision is 3.
Meaning every entity gets 3 devices by default? Or all devices are 3
years old? I dunno. (I think "voting device" does approximately the same
job if that's the legal noun replacement).
I also thought about the "Finally [...] if it is outside the allowable
range for values of devices, it is set to..." but the "it" referent of the
preceding line items in the 'on' or 'off' sections wouldn't make sense?
-G.
