On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 02:54:31PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > b. A defeat (A,X) is weaker than a defeat (B,Y) if A is not > the default option and V(A,X) is less than V(B,Y). Also, > (A,X) is weaker than (B,Y) A is not the default option and if > V(A,X) is equal to V(B,Y) and V(X,A) is greater than V(Y,B).
I think you left out the definition of weaker for the default option, no? Actually, before I noticed that you exclude the default option, I was going to say I like this. I think that using the supermajority ratio when determining defeats, but not when determining strength of defeats, is probably the best policy. An example that motivates this is in my message with subject "supermajority options". Other comments on the draft: - Please use either tabs or spaces consistently. ;-) - Not handling general (non int-1) supermajority ratios would be silly. As long as it will be understood that the n in n:1 need not be a whole number, there's no problem. But it might be better to mention this possibility explicitly. - I find use of terms before their definitions jarring. But since nobody else has complained, that's may just be me. Andrew -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]