On Fri, 22 Feb 2008, Ian Kelly wrote: > On Fri, Feb 22, 2008 at 5:20 PM, Kerim Aydin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> (c) The sum of all legally specified Partisanship values >> for all specified players is equal to 1.0. > > I think you want the mean, not the sum. Also, note that the mean > Partisanship of the specified set wasn't necessarily equal to 1.0 > *before* the proposal took effect; so a set of players each with > Partisanship 0.5 might pass a proposal to raise the Partisanship of > each to 1.0. I'm not certain whether that's a good thing or not.
Yes, I meant the mean, though as Murphy points out, to avoid fractions using the sum of players is better. Also, perhaps your "good thing or not" isn't a good thing, maybe "any player not listed has their P'ship set to 1.0". > Also, what happens if one of the specified players has the nerve to > deregister before the proposal takes effect and throws off the > balance? Erm, yes. I also want to allow some loose/flexible set specification (e.g. "all players with quality X get a P'ship of 1.5" where quality X might vary during voting period). Need to think about the balance between flexible and zero sum here. Hmm. -Goethe
