Certainly an interesting idea. Unfortunately, I joined too late to
participate in the voting. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
On 10/9/2018 6:18 PM, D. Margaux wrote:
The proposals were constructed such that each player was on exactly two
slates. So, ATM would have won if only A or C won; if both A and C won; or
if C and B won, but not A. Other permutations would obtain for other
players. The hope was that it would lead to some fun strategic voting
behavior.
At least that was my intent... whether it succeeded, we shall see I
suppose.
On Tue, Oct 9, 2018 at 6:12 PM ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk <
ais...@alumni.bham.ac.uk> wrote:
On Tue, 2018-10-09 at 16:08 -0600, Reuben Staley wrote:
Since you are Slate A and Slate C, you either can't win the game by
announcement because Slate B players can as the former, or you can't win
the game by announcement because there is no mechanism for the latter to
do so.
Doesn't the existence of a (Slate A and Slate C) player mess up some of
the conditionals as to whether specific slates can win?
--
ais523
