Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Oh, sorry, didn't realize the first wasn't to the discussion forum. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:34 PM, Jason Cobb wrote: I got the first one, if that helps in any way. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Jason Cobb Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). The intent is that the effect on the case would depend on the outcome of the decision, but not /just/ on the outcome; it would also depend on the margin of victory. If votes were (say) AFFIRM 5 / REMAND 2 / REMIT 2, it would say "nope, not enough consensus, case is LOGJAMMED". (It would still use the decision mechanics because some parts, e.g. the length of the voting period, would still make sense and thus wouldn't need to be reinvented.)
Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
I got the first one, if that helps in any way. Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 11:33 PM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2019 20:32:12 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: Jason Cobb Jason Cobb wrote: I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). The intent is that the effect on the case would depend on the outcome of the decision, but not /just/ on the outcome; it would also depend on the margin of victory. If votes were (say) AFFIRM 5 / REMAND 2 / REMIT 2, it would say "nope, not enough consensus, case is LOGJAMMED". (It would still use the decision mechanics because some parts, e.g. the length of the voting period, would still make sense and thus wouldn't need to be reinvented.)
Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
I'm not sure that the outcome of the Agoran Decision includes the margin by which it was made, so the "less than a 2/3 majority" clause might not be effective. (Also, minor nitpick: 2/3 is a supermajority, not a majority.) Also, this makes it even more likely that a vote might get split between REMAND and REMIT and end up giving it to AFFIRM (or LOGJAMMED), although I'm not sure how much of a concern that really is (I just hate first past the post for more than 2 options). Jason Cobb On 7/2/19 12:21 AM, Edward Murphy wrote: Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 21:08:27 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk ais523 wrote: This doesn't actually allow indefinite motions to reconsider (e.g. in cases where a judge is repeatedly insisting on a particular judgement with everyone else disagreeing with them), thus meaning that LOGJAMMED is never appropriate. Point, so this'll need a re-think of some sort. There probably needs to be some way to forcibly change a CFJ's judge. Depends on the numbers. If it's "Bob judges TRUE, everyone else insists FALSE", then presumably the sequence of events would be: * Group reconsideration, Bob judges TRUE again * Moot, REMIT, Bob is replaced by Charlie * Charlie judges FALSE, Bob lacks support for reconsideration Where it breaks down, as I understand it, is when there are two or more groups of roughly equal size who strongly disagree on the judgement, and thus the Moot probably doesn't get a /clear/ majority (especially as it has three options, AFFIRM/REMAND/REMIT). Revised proto: Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by appending this text: * LOGJAMMED, appropriate if it is assigned as the outcome of a Moot. LOGJAMMED is not appropriate otherwise. Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by replacing this text: - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and cannot be entered into Moot again. this text: - FAILED QUORUM, or less than a 2/3 majority: The case is assigned a judgement of LOGJAMMED and CANNOT be entered into Moot again (the issue should instead be resolved via proposal), and the remainder of this list does not apply. - AFFIRM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and CANNOT be entered into Moot again.
Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot
Forwarded Message Subject: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot Date: Mon, 1 Jul 2019 21:08:27 -0700 From: Edward Murphy To: ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk ais523 wrote: This doesn't actually allow indefinite motions to reconsider (e.g. in cases where a judge is repeatedly insisting on a particular judgement with everyone else disagreeing with them), thus meaning that LOGJAMMED is never appropriate. Point, so this'll need a re-think of some sort. There probably needs to be some way to forcibly change a CFJ's judge. Depends on the numbers. If it's "Bob judges TRUE, everyone else insists FALSE", then presumably the sequence of events would be: * Group reconsideration, Bob judges TRUE again * Moot, REMIT, Bob is replaced by Charlie * Charlie judges FALSE, Bob lacks support for reconsideration Where it breaks down, as I understand it, is when there are two or more groups of roughly equal size who strongly disagree on the judgement, and thus the Moot probably doesn't get a /clear/ majority (especially as it has three options, AFFIRM/REMAND/REMIT). Revised proto: Amend Rule 591 (Delivering Judgements) by appending this text: * LOGJAMMED, appropriate if it is assigned as the outcome of a Moot. LOGJAMMED is not appropriate otherwise. Amend Rule 911 (Motions and Moots) by replacing this text: - AFFIRM, FAILED QUORUM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and cannot be entered into Moot again. this text: - FAILED QUORUM, or less than a 2/3 majority: The case is assigned a judgement of LOGJAMMED and CANNOT be entered into Moot again (the issue should instead be resolved via proposal), and the remainder of this list does not apply. - AFFIRM: The judgement is reassigned to the case, and CANNOT be entered into Moot again.
