On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 04:04:05PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> > Does Branden's pass the supermajority clause? If not, it presumably
> > wouldn't if reasked anyway, and it fails.
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people[1] from
> proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
^^^^^^^^^^^
What are the scare quotes for? Did we not already have this discussion?
> but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
Absolutely nothing. The question isn't how controversial the amendment is,
though, it's whether people prefer the amendment with just the cosmetic
alterations to the original proposal.
> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> amendments to the Social Contract".)
No, that's completely wrong.
If you have the options:
[a] Remove non-free clause, editorial changes
[b] Don't change the social contract, support non-free more!
[c] Further Discussion
Then the winner is elected by checking:
Does a defeats c by more than 3:1?
Does b defeat c?
If one or both of these don't happen, the winner is obvious (if a
fails, but b doesn't; it's b; if b fails but a doesn't, it's a; if
both do, it's c)
Does a defeat b?
The only reason to vote insincerely is if you suspect that the outcome will
be:
B defeats A
A defeats C
B defeats C by N+K:N
and you can convince at least K people to swap their preferences for B and
C, and that given the choice between your proposal and the alternative,
most people prefer the alternative.
And I know we've already had this discussion. Are you going to be
spreading FUD about every resolution that passes that you don't like?
Cheers,
aj
--
Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.
Australian DMCA (the Digital Agenda Amendments) Under Review!
-- http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/blog/copyright/digitalagenda
pgpNQZ67UxT2Z.pgp
Description: PGP signature
