warrigal wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 25, 2008 at 7:01 AM, Elliott Hird
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> On 25 Oct 2008, at 02:37, warrigal wrote:
>>> If you join the Llama Party, you can force BobTHJ and me to vote
>>> AGAINST (unless we're both FOR it, in which case you'll be voting
>>> AGAINST and we'll be voting FOR).
>> If e joins the Llama Party e has less of a vote.
>
> E has more of a vote, if eir votes are AGAINST.
warrigal is right (modulo eir lack of playerhood, I think). Remember,
Llama votes are not resolved by simple majority, but by weighted
majority depending on the proposal's AI. Relevant clause, for review:
> A valid vote cast by a Llama of LLAMA (X), where X resolves to FOR or
> AGAINST, is a party vote toward FOR or AGAINST, respectively. A party
> vote endorses the party decision, or resolves to X if there is no
> party decision. The party decision is based on the ratio of party
> votes toward FOR to party votes toward AGAINST: if this ratio is
> greater than the Agoran decision's adoption index, the party decision
> is FOR, and if the ratio is less, the party decision is AGAINST.
Thus, given AI = 2 and three parties, one of which votes LLAMA(A):
* If both the others vote LLAMA(F), then the ratio is equal to the
AI, there is no party decision, and the votes resolve to A F F.
* Otherwise, the ratio is less than the AI, the party decision is A,
and the votes resolve to A A A.
