DIS: Re: OFF: [assumed Promotor] Distribution of Proposal 7610

2013-12-14 Thread Nich Del Evans
On Fri, Dec 13, 2013 at 7:06 PM, Kerim Aydin ke...@u.washington.edu wrote: Proposal 7610 by G. (AI-3, Ordinary, PF-0, no party) Low-hanging Fruit [Low-hanging Fruit removes Yaks, Government, person classes, a few other things, simplifies chambers, simplifies Holidays] I vote FOR, and

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Alex Smith wrote: Quorum for an Agoran Decision is equal to the number of currently active players who voted on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, minus 3. Determined at what time? The current Rule 879 depends on the definition of eligible

DIS: Re: BUS: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread Kerim Aydin
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Alex Smith wrote: I have no real idea how proposals work in the current economy (which we should hopefully get rid of), but: Just as a public service announcement to all, don't let not understanding the current state of economy stop you from proposing! If promotor

DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread omd
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: Amend Rule 879 to read as follows: {{{ Quorum for an Agoran Decision is equal to the number of currently active players who voted on the most recently resolved Agoran Decision to adopt a proposal, minus 3. }}}

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread Alex Smith
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 22:20 -0500, omd wrote: This can potentially make quorum negative; I guess this is not inherently wrong, but it seems odd. Also likely to make scams easier in some cases, which, it being you, I'm sure is purposeful... I made a conscious decision not to think too much

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread Ørjan Johansen
On Sun, 15 Dec 2013, Alex Smith wrote: It shouldn't make scams easier unless there's widespread disinterest in a distribution. In fact, the rule would provide an incentive to vote (so as to prevent the following distribution being used for a voting scam). I imagine it could scammably amplify

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread omd
On Sat, Dec 14, 2013 at 10:25 PM, Alex Smith ais...@bham.ac.uk wrote: It shouldn't make scams easier unless there's widespread disinterest in a distribution. In fact, the rule would provide an incentive to vote (so as to prevent the following distribution being used for a voting scam). Well,

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Re: What about changing quorum like this?

2013-12-14 Thread Alex Smith
On Sat, 2013-12-14 at 23:03 -0500, omd wrote: Well, it would make scams easier if the scamster waits for a (historically fairly rare, but not unheard of) period of mass apathy, such as the current one. Not the end of the world. Especially as apathetic periods are the ones most likely to