Hello, On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free > > (Requires supermajority) > > B = try to nurture and increase non-free > > (Requires no supermajority) > > C = further discussion > > > > it could easily happen that A get's kicked out and B wins then. > > (Exmaple: 200 ABC, 102 BAC, 101 CAB) > > What's wrong with B winning? B defeats C by 302:101 and A doesn't > satisfy supermajority. If you think something else should happen, > please explain why?
Previously you claimed the following: On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum, > but we expect that they're not important because people using those > strategies can only cause the default option to win, and the default ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > option is just a short delay until the next vote. > > What would you think of an implementation of supermajority which has > this same general characteristic? [I ask this because Anthony Town's > most recent implied draft presents an implementation of supermajority > with exactly this property.] With the above example I want to refute this claim. In the example the supermajority requirement causes a non-default option to win. Jochen -- Omm (0)-(0) http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
pgpYHXnHw9w8J.pgp
Description: PGP signature