On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Ed Murphy wrote: > Huh. I suppose it is. > > I think it would suffice to treat the number of supporters as one less > if the initiator is non-first-class. This could cover With N Support > as well, replacing "or N+1 supporters". > > What if the initiator is first-class but the performer isn't, or vice > versa? *looks again* Wait a minute, you don't disqualify either the > initiator or the performer from supporting! Anyway, that will need to > be worked out as well.
Oop. Must have cut something out of the old rule that prevented that. Maybe the easiest thing is to combine these issues: leave N alone (get rid of N+1) and disqualify the "first-class person who posts the intent, or who posts the intent on behalf of a second-class person" from supporting. Cases where initiator and performer differ may be more complex. There may have been another bug in the old rule: if the initiator and performer differed, could one of them also be a supporter? Which one? I'll have another look. I think the easiest way is to always disqualify the initiator, cases where that could be abused should be suitably rare. -Goethe
