On Thu, 23 Jan 2020 at 15:11, Aris Merchant via agora-discussion < [email protected]> wrote:
> Why would we want this? Our system is explicitly designed to make sure > that people can't announce intent to do something with support or with > Agoran consent, and then single-handedly tank the intent. That sort of > thing was the source of scams (or at least I seem to recall hearing it > was) and required other people to intend to perform the same action if > they wanted to be safe. To solve the problem, we allow supporters to > act on behalf to do something even if the original announcer won't; > this would break that protection. Furthermore, I see no significant > benefit to > doing this. > > -Aris Pure support intents do not require any time delay (except if the Speaker objects, but that's a very edge case), so there is no real cost there. In effect, "With N Support" means "if N+1 players agree", except that currently the initiator is awkwardly positioned as the only person who cannot withdraw eir support, unless e remembered to add a condition "unless I withdraw this intent", which would be binding. For With Notice and pure objection intents, the initiator can refuse to resolve the intent regardless. Adding a withdrawal clause prevents the initiator from changing eir mind later, which is IMO generally a good thing as it means that people can take withdrawal at face value and not have to remember to object anyway. Agoran consent is the only place where I think your argument holds, again unless the author remembered to add a binding condition against withdrawal but that would provide the notification required for others to make a parallel announcement. Here's an alternate proposal: make it so that: - The initiator is eligible to support an action by default. - With N Support is changed to require N+1 supporters (to account for the initiator). - Change Agoran consent *only* by requiring more supporters than objectors, in addition to the existing requirement. No change to Agoran consent otherwise as fundamentally I think that it's a bit of a weird thing that N Agoran consent actually requires N*O+1 supporters, where O is the number of objectors. This brings it in line with usual supermajority requirements being only N*O. - Make it so that withdrawing an intent is equivalent to withdrawing support, if any, and objecting to it, if possible. I'd be open to allowing w/o 2+ objection or with notice intents resolvable by other players, as a separate matter, but we'd have to figure out how to protect against withdrawal of 2+ objection intents leading players to ignore them, as is currently a risk. -Alexis
