On 1/24/2022 1:38 PM, Gaelan Steele via agora-discussion wrote: > > >> On Jan 24, 2022, at 9:34 PM, Kerim Aydin via agora-discussion >> <agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote: >> >> Further, if it's trying to take into account past-only but forcing the >> assessor to calculate "instantaneous" results (e.g. the assessor has to >> calculate whether something would pass at every given moment) seems like a >> textbook case of "unreasonable effort" also making it too ambiguous to >> succeed? > > This is the interpretation I intended; you might be right about the > unreasonable effort.
Ignoring that, there's a counter-strategy by setting up actual conditional votes early on, such that those conditional votes cause your conditional action to evaluate the wrong way. Example: 2 unconditional FOR votes cast first. Conditional vote cast second: "If Gaelan has voted unconditionally AGAINST, then AGAINST, otherwise FOR." (conditional not evaluated until the end). Gaelan then does: "If it would pass right now even if I voted AGAINST, then I cast an unconditional AGAINST, otherwise an unconditional FOR." (conditional evaluated at time of message). When Gaelan's vote is evaluated at the time of casting, there's 3 votes FOR, and Galean would be 1 AGAINST, so that resolves as Gaelan voting unconditionally AGAINST and it "would" succeed. But then at the time of actual evaluation, Gaelan's unconditional AGAINST flips the conditional ballot to a 2/2 tie and the proposal fails. -G.
