root wrote: > * Abuse VCs. When you consider that all VPOP of an org. is divided among partners, and VC of an org must be split between partners, it's not much gain.
Frankly, it's far more of an abuse that a single natural player can accumulate 13x (or arbitrarily more) base voting power on something through free submission of trivial fix proposals. That's more of a chilling effect on voting than partnership VC spending is. The correct system should be an absolute cap, or a progressive cost (Cost of increasing VPOP by one is proportional to VPOP to some power greater than 0). Overall, nothing's changed here in your above general opinion in a long time: in 2001 we were trying to implement teams/partnerships in a meaningful way (that was my first scam, CFJoops the CotC web is offline this moment). I'd do away with individual voting altogether, but there's resistance to hierarchical structure here. Just because "we've always done it that way, lad" doesn't mean it's for the good of the game. For example, for the officers, what's better for "the good of the game", folks who leave for vacation, etc. or a partnership that can trade off responsibilities seamlessly. -Goethe
