> My apologies for the delayed reply here, but this was intentional and > I would ask that everyone who voted against it for this reason > consider voting in favour. This is done to match up with the way that > proposals work: an AI=1 proposal requires a strict majority, but an > AI=2 proposal can be passed with 2 FOR and 1 AGAINST. This is also in > keeping with most interpretations of parliamentary procedure I have > seen: a "vote of two thirds" is passed at 2:1, not failed, for > instance. The previous wording for Agoran consent correctly required > that 1 Agoran consent have a majority in favour, but incorrectly > required that higher values also have an extra vote in favour. The > first condition that S <= O ensures that 1 Agoran consent is left > unchanged. > > In effect, there are two independent changes here: one is to allow the > initiator to count when evaluating support for all intents, and the > other is to change the Agoran consent definition to line up with the > way that supermajority votes normally work. I apologize for not making > this clearer in the proposal. > > Alexis
Sounds good to me. Thanks for the explanation. - Falsifian
