Re: DIS: Re: BUS: (@treasuror, @promotor) [proposal] basic scoring

[Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion]

On 1/24/2022 1:20 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote:
>> On Jan 23, 2022, at 10:02 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion 
>> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
>>
>> Yup, and if more than one person have that idea and all change at about
>> the same time, the proposal might fail - that's part of the fun of it...
>> (at least, that strategy was by design in my mind, it's possible of course
>> that it wouldn't end up being fun).
> 
> The “safe” strategy is to use a conditional:
> 
> I perform the following action if, if proposal xxxx was resolved immediately
> before or after this action, it would have the same outcome:
>   I change my vote on proposal xxxx to AGAINST.
> 
> (Note that this isn’t a conditional vote: it’s a normal change of vote, as a
> normal conditional action.)

I think there's pretty strong precedents that outside of the
explicitly-legislated conditional votes, conditionals have to be
resolvable with information available at the time of the conditional
message - no future conditionals allowed (i.e. depending on future
conditionals just makes it an ambiguous announcement).

Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the
assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to
calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a
textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to
succeed?

-G.