No, it's one where you promise not to act unless both are fulfilled.
Greetings,
Ørjan, who keeps seeing more and more evidence that humans are naturally
bad at this kind of distinction.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
How so? Does it need to have both enough support and a lack of objectors? Do
we even have anything right now that works that way? Do we *want* to have
anything right now that works that way?
If it's one where you choose which one to declare your intent with, I don't
see how it causes a problem.
On 2019-02-15 12:11, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
Quoting myself from my response to D. Margaux:
"That breaks if intents are allowed to be both with objection and with
support."
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019, Madeline wrote:
Suggested wording:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if and only
if one or more of the following are true:
1. the action is to be performed Without N Objections and it
has fewer than N objectors;
2. the action is to be performed With N support and it has
N or more supporters
3. the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent and either
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
4. the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
On 2019-02-15 11:54, James Cook wrote:
I added the negation because I was worried about interpretations of
whether "if X then Y" is true. With classical logic, we may interpret
that as "not X or Y", which would work great, but it could also be
interpreted as the list entry only being present if X is there, so
we'd end up with "if all of the following are true: <nothing>", and
I'm not sure everyone would interpret that as true. Just seemed easier
to phrase in the negative way.
Will think more about it later, but suggestions welcome.
On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 at 00:39, Ørjan Johansen <oer...@nvg.ntnu.no> wrote:
I don't like the essential double negation in this - if people were
confused about what the previous version means, then that's just going
to
make it worse. And I'm not convinced #3 means what you want if there
are
supporters and no objectors - undefined values mess up logic.
Instead I'd suggest staying with forward reasoning by keeping the
current
items, except for #4 and the "; and", and adding "if all of the
following
are true" that you suggested in an earlier message.
Greetings,
Ørjan.
On Thu, 14 Feb 2019, James Cook wrote:
Sorry for all the versions.
I withdraw my previous proposal (Correction to Agoran Satisfaction,
Version 1.1.2) and submit a proposal as follows, and comment that I
removed the word "and" between #2 and #3 and turned the items into
sentences.
Title: Correction to Agoran Satisfaction, Version 1.1.3
Adoption Index: 2
Text:
Replace the following part of of Rule 2124:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action if
and only if:
1. if the action is to be performed Without N Objections, then it
has fewer than N objectors;
2. if the action is to be performed With N support, then it has
N or more supporters; and
3. if the action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, then
the ratio of supporters to objectors is greater than N, or the
action has at least one supporter and no objectors.
4. if the action is to be performed With Notice or With T Notice.
with this:
Agora is Satisfied with an intent to perform a specific action
unless at least one of the following is true:
1. The action is to be performed Without N Objections, and it has
at least N objectors.
2. The action is to be performed With N support, and it has fewer
than N supporters.
3. The action is to be performed with N Agoran Consent, and
the ratio of supporters to objectors is no more than N, and
the
action has no supporters or at least one objector.
