On Thu, 2008-07-03 at 09:49 -0700, Kerim Aydin wrote: > I object to anything that takes away a good-faith ability to settle > accounts as opposed to forced selling. This is bad, and I urge others > not to approve. I also intend to leave the Vote Market as soon as I can, > as it's obvious that I can't depend on a contract changable by "majority > consent" to be anywhere near reasonably protective of an individual's > interests. Well, the proposed change allows players 30 days to try to sort the situation out for themselves. The previous version allowed 60 days, after which a SHALL requirement was violated, and comex got chokeyed and also forced to vote as requested by the other parties as a result (due to an equity case). This new version effectively just streamlines the equity case out of the way, instead prescribing what should happen. It also sets a value on VP. (3 VP for a retracted and recast vote is quite a lot, really, the mandatory forced sell is not good value on today's vote market; you were selling this for 2VP on proposals recently, and presumably are still doing so on all but the most recent batch.)
If the 30 days were changed to 60 days, would you support then? The contract is then less restrictive then it was before. -- ais523
