DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
I'm happy with the intent of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that The voting limit of an eligible voter is reduced by one if e is not a natural person. is actually going to work. It's at least unclear. When is the voting limit reduced? The most natural interpretation seems to be when other provisions of this rule set it, which would mean after a win a partnership's VLOP would be reset to one, not zero as intended. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
On 5/4/07, Zefram [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm happy with the intent of this proposal, but I'm not convinced that The voting limit of an eligible voter is reduced by one if e is not a natural person. is actually going to work. It's at least unclear. When is the voting limit reduced? The most natural interpretation seems to be when other provisions of this rule set it, which would mean after a win a partnership's VLOP would be reset to one, not zero as intended. I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it would be if the voter was not a natural person. Any suggestions on wording? -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
Taral wrote: Any suggestions on wording? I think your explanation was much clearer: at any point, the voting limit is one less than it would be if the voter was not a natural person. We've used such forms of wording in the rules before. Adjusting slightly, I suggest the following paragraph for your rule: The voting limit of an eligible voter who is not a natural person is always one less than it would otherwise be. There's also an alternative construction that avoids this entirely. The VLDP paragraph would be The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal is one if the voter is a natural person or zero otherwise, and cannot be changed. Then for VLOP define a default VLOP the same way as VLDP is defined, and wherever VLOP is currently set to one instead set it to the default VLOP. Another refinement: you might want to make non-natural persons not be eligible voters on democratic proposals, rather than eligible with a limit of zero. Not sure whether it makes any difference, though, and it's a more complicated change, so I suggest leaving that for the time being. -zefram
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it would be if the voter was not a natural person. I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons. -- C. Maud Image (Michael Slone) Give me all your money or I'll pinch you. -- Steve, in an example
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
Maud wrote: On 5/4/07, Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I struggled with making it sufficiently generic and yet clear. The intent is that at any point, the voting limit is one less than it would be if the voter was not a natural person. I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons. Ahem. Annabel? Also, http://www.theonion.com/content/cartoon/apr-20-2007
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons. How boring. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
Taral wrote: On 5/4/07, Michael Slone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I have a better idea: restrict playerhood to actual persons. How boring. I agree. We've previously had Groups that could vote, own currencies, and suchlike; I see no reason not to explore the possibilities of group-like entities that can exercise the other functions of playerhood. We need a bit of regulation, not outright extinguishment. -zefram
DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
Taral wrote: I submit the following proposal: Proposal: No free votes Adoption Index: 3 Change rule 1950 (Voting Limits) to read: The voting limit of an eligible voter on a democratic proposal is one and cannot be changed except by this rule. The voting limit of an eligible voter on an ordinary proposal is one if not explicitly modified by other rules. The voting limit of an eligible voter is reduced by one if e is not a natural person. After the voting period for an Agoran decision has ended, the vote collector shall permit the first valid ballots submitted by an eligible voter to remain valid, up to a number equal to that person's voting limit on that decision as determined when the voting period for that decision began, and shall invalidate all subsequent ballots submitted by that voter on that decision. So non-natural players may not vote on democratic proposals?
Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Proposal: No free votes
On 5/3/07, quazie [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So non-natural players may not vote on democratic proposals? Exactly. -- Taral [EMAIL PROTECTED] You can't prove anything. -- Gödel's Incompetence Theorem
