Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
Zefram wrote:
I dislike this idea.
Why?
I think it's not a naturally significant condition, but one that could be
expected to occur in some perfectly ordinary circumstances. Attempts to
avert such a win would induce people to make good proposals fail, which
is a perverse behaviour that should not be encouraged.
This is no worse than people voting down good proposals because they
feel the author has too many VCs as it is. The first clause should
probably be restricted to interested proposals.
Contrast against the win for getting identical voting results on three
proposals in a row, which we had years ago and which I protoed as
a VC-gaining condition this year. That can be averted by a smaller
perturbation of the voting, without changing the outcome of any proposal.
I would support reinstating this as a win condition.
