Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker Fix

[Kerim Aydin]

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016, Aris Merchant wrote:
> You mean it would never pass? It wasn't obvious to me. Anyhow one could 
> always just 
> declare someone speaker. 
> -Aris

It could pass if e convinces or bribes enough people that e'd be a good speaker,
it's a scam if e's got a trick that would give em more votes than we expect...

DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker Fix

[Owen Jacobson]

> On Sep 17, 2016, at 10:45 AM, Alexis Hunt  wrote:
> 
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{

This looks pretty good overall. I like the generalization of voting strength. 
However, I believe this proposal will be ineffective with AI=1 - several of the 
rules amended have Power greater than 1.
>   (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
>   to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this purpose, a
>   ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N distinct ballots
>   expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid
>   options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the
>   vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
>   decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if,
>   for N > 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would
>   result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
>   not specify the order of elimination.
Did you intend to use N for both variables? It looks like the two variables are 
used differently (the first N for voting strength, the second N for order of 
elimination), so it may read better if you used two variables.
>   (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
>   highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote
>   collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's
>   resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome.
> }}}
You’ve also removed the clarifiers regarding FAILED QUORUM outcomes et al. This 
doesn’t appear to be intentional.

-o




signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail

Re: DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker Fix

[Alexis Hunt]

On Sat, Sep 17, 2016 at 10:25 PM Aris Merchant <
thoughtsoflifeandligh...@gmail.com> wrote:

> The first bit seems fine. The second bit though... Okay, I don't really
> know the precedent on this, but it seems like a fairly minor thing to have
> someone win over. I mean if someone fixes a game-braking error, or even a
> major one, that makes sense. But this doesn't even break anything. It just
> means that the election mechanics don't function quite as intended.
>
> -Aris
>

Well yes, but winning is how you become Speaker. In any case the second
proposal is an obvious scam.

-Alexis

DIS: Re: BUS: Speaker Fix

[Aris Merchant]

The first bit seems fine. The second bit though... Okay, I don't really
know the precedent on this, but it seems like a fairly minor thing to have
someone win over. I mean if someone fixes a game-braking error, or even a
major one, that makes sense. But this doesn't even break anything. It just
means that the election mechanics don't function quite as intended.

-Aris

On Saturday, September 17, 2016, Alexis Hunt  wrote:

> The Speaker is supposed to get two votes in the election for Prime
> Minister, but elections for offices use FPTP which doesn't count voting
> strength.
>
> Proposal: Voting Strength Fix (AI=1)
> {{{
> Amend rule 2422 (Voting Strength) by inserting "on an Agoran decision"
> after each occurrence of "entity".
>
> Amend rule 2423 (First Among Equals) by replacing the second paragraph
> with:
>   On any Agoran decision to adopt a Proposal, the holder of the
>   office of Prime Minister has voting strength one greater than
>   e would have if e did not hold the office.
>
> Amend rule 955 by replacing (Determining the Will of Agora) by replacing
> the text with:
>
>   Each Agoran decision has a voting method, which determines how
>   voters may vote on it and how to calculate the outcome. The strength of
>   a ballot is the voting strength of the voter who cast it on that Agoran
>   decision.
>
>   The following voting methods are defined:
>
>   (1) AI-majority: the valid votes are FOR and AGAINST.  Let F be
>   the total strength of all valid ballots cast FOR a decision, A be   
>the same for AGAINST, and AI becthe adoption index of the
>   decision.  The outcome is ADOPTED if F/A >= AI and F/A > 1
>   (or F>0 and A=0), otherwise REJECTED.
>
>   (2) Instant runoff: the valid votes are ordered lists of
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option wins according
>   to the standard definition of instant runoff. For this purpose, a   
>ballot of strength N is treated as if it were N distinct ballots
>   expressing the same preferences. In case multiple valid
>   options tie for the lowest number of votes at any stage, the
>   vote collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
>   decision's resolution, select one such option to eliminate; if,
>   for N > 1, all eir possible choices in the next N stages would
>   result in the same set of options being eliminated, e need
>   not specify the order of elimination.
>
>   (3) First-past-the-post (default): the valid votes are the
>   options, and the outcome is whichever option received the
>   highest total strength of valid ballots. In case of a tie, the vote
>   collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the decision's
>   resolution, select one of the leaders as the outcome.
>
> }}}
>
> Also, I feel I deserve a reward for fixing this bug:
>
> Proposal: New Speaker (AI=1){{{Enact a new Power-1 rule reading:
>   Upon enactment of this rule, Alexis wins and then this rule repeals 
> itself.
> }}}-Alexis
>
>