proto-proposal: triplication
AI: 2
{{{
Amend rule 2126 by inserting in the list of ways that VCs can be
gained (and lost, if both are in a single list), immediately after the
last item that mentions either red or orange VCs, the new item
(+A) When the Agoran decision on an interested proposal is
resolved, if the proposal has met quorum, and the two
previous (by order of voting period ending) unwithdrawn
proposals from the same proposer each received exactly the
same number of valid votes for each option, the proposer
gains one amber VC unless e gained a VC in this way earlier
in the same week.
and then inserting in the list of ways that VCs can be lost (and
gained, if both are in a single list), immediately after the last item
that mentions red VCs, orange VCs, or amber VCs, the new item
(-A) When the Agoran decision on an interested proposal is
resolved, if the proposal has met quorum, and the three
previous (by order of voting period ending) unwithdrawn
proposals from the same proposer each received exactly the
same number of valid votes for each option, the proposer
loses one amber VC unless e lost a VC in this way earlier
in the same week.
[There used to be a way to win by getting the same number of votes
FOR, AGAINST, and ABSTAIN on three consecutive proposals. This would
award a VC for this situation. Per-week limit makes this immune to
Crito's scam that got em over 550 wins in quick succession when most
of 600 proposals got the same voting results, though we're not
particularly vulnerable to that due to free voting. The amber VC loss
is another twist: *four* consecutive proposals giving the same vote
totals cancels out the VC gain from the first three, so precision is
required to keep the VC.]
[I'm concerned that the fiddliness of the condition might increase the
assessor's workload unreasonably. Murphy?]
}}}
-zefram
