Zefram wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>> 5124 AGAINST
>
> What's the problem with proper disinterest? Having the penalty apply
> to disinterested proposals provides a perverse incentive for people
> to vote on disinterested proposals contrary to their actual opinion of
> the proposal. That's what disinterest is meant to avoid.
I don't think the incentive at that end of the scale is strong
enough to worry about very often. I'll mull it over while the
voting period continues to count down.
>> 5137 FOR
>
> I'm even more surprised that the anti-MMI voters object to greater
> explication in an already-MMIed rule.
Your choice of quoting caused some players (comex and myself, at
least) to think that you were pushing "CAN <x> and SHALL <y>"
even when <y> = <x>. (The unchanged and unquoted portion of the
sentence led to <y> = "<x> ASAP".)
>> 5138 FOR
>
> After I submitted this, I recalled (to my embarrassment) that some
> months ago I described "Support Democracy" as a temporary provision.
> It's only there to stop ladder scams. But we haven't done much about
> ladder scams since then, and on reflection "Support Democracy" *is*
> a more democratic version of the pre-existing veto. Roll on the day
> when we don't need *any* veto provision.
I was concerned that "Support Democracy" would be used routinely by
people with low EVLOP, thus making high EVLOP useless. This hasn't
happened, but I would still support amending it to say that it SHALL
only be used to prevent ladder scams.
("Ladder scam" = "Ordinary Proposal that scams a bug to touch the
Power >= 2 rules", correct?)
