On 01/17/2012 05:03 AM, Arkady English wrote:
> On 15 January 2012 15:24, Tanner Swett <swe...@mail.gvsu.edu> wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 15, 2012 at 9:15 AM, 441344 <441...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Amend Rule 1950 by replacing the text
>>> {
>>> Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
>>> either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 from 1.0 to 9.9.
>>> } with the text
>>> {
>>> Adoption index is a switch possessed by Agoran decisions, whose value is
>>> either "none" (default) or an integral multiple of 0.1 greater than
>>> or equal to 1.0.
>>> }.
>>> }.
>>
>> The reason there's an upper limit is that someone once submitted a
>> proposal with an adoption index hundreds of digits long. The only
>> reasonable solution, I think, is to limit adoption indices to exactly
>> 35.
>>
>> —Machiavelli
>
> Shouldn't adoption indices be capped to the maximum number of votes
> which may be cast on that proposal.
>
> So, if there are N players, each with 1 vote to cast on a proposal
> submitted, any adoption index greater or equal to N would require
> unanimity to pass (because if 1 player votes against it there are only
> (N-1) players to vote in favour, so it will never meet the adoption
> index).
>
> This becomes a problem if the number of votes available to cast does
> not remain constant through the voting period - although that could be
> fixed by allowing adoption indices to be a linear function of
> MaxVotes, and setting any adoption index greater MaxVotes to
> MaxVotes.
>
> Arkady
Adoption indices are tied to fractions. A proposal with an adoption
index of N requires an N/(N+1) majority to pass. The total number of
voters is irrelevant.
