Re: Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot

2019-07-02 Thread Jason Cobb

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

2019-07-02 Thread Jason Cobb

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.)



Fwd: Re: Fwd: Re: DIS: Proto: Moots are moot

2019-07-02 Thread Edward Murphy





 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.)