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