Hello, On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote: > On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote: > > A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free > > (Requires supermajority) > > B = try to nurture and increase non-free > > (Requires no supermajority) > > C = further discussion > > > > it could easily happen that A get's kicked out and B wins then. > > (Exmaple: 200 ABC, 102 BAC, 101 CAB) > > What's wrong with B winning? B defeats C by 302:101 and A doesn't > satisfy supermajority. If you think something else should happen, > please explain why?
Previously you claimed the following:
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
> but we expect that they're not important because people using those
> strategies can only cause the default option to win, and the default
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> option is just a short delay until the next vote.
>
> What would you think of an implementation of supermajority which has
> this same general characteristic? [I ask this because Anthony Town's
> most recent implied draft presents an implementation of supermajority
> with exactly this property.]
With the above example I want to refute this claim.
In the example the supermajority requirement causes a
non-default option to win.
Jochen
--
Omm
(0)-(0)
http://www.mathematik.uni-kl.de/~wwwstoch/voss/privat.html
pgpYHXnHw9w8J.pgp
Description: PGP signature
