Ed Murphy wrote: >There are currently no ways to make it irrational, and even if there >were, it would only last until the end of the week.
Yes. Defining it to be restricted to rationals would have explanatory benefit. >I still think we should use sheqelim and agorot somewhere or other.) Yes, I think they're good terms. And, as currencies go, less annoying than the knut, sickle, and galleon from that plant-growing proto. (At the time I thought the proto author had picked the names out of thin air, and chosen the bizarre conversion factors just to be awkward. I later discovered that they're from Harry Potter, so it was actually J. K. Rowling that had chosen the bizarre conversion factors just to be awkward.) >"Ordinary" proposals are not the most common type. Maybe a reason for a different name, but "House" doesn't seem any better. How about "Skewed", to contrast with "Democratic"? >"Democratic" proposals cannot be adopted with a simple majority. They offer all the natural voters equal voting power. This is eminently democratic. >Allowing a fifth vote per player on House proposals makes it >marginally easier to count such votes. > >Allowing a second vote per player on Senate proposals allows >players to distinguish between strong and weak support/opposition >to such a proposal. These changes are pretty neutral. They can, of course, stand alone. No need to bundle them with all the terminology stuff. -zefram
