El 13/02/2020 a las 13:24, AIS523--- via agora-discussion escribió:
On Thu, 2020-02-13 at 12:40 +0100, sukil via agora-discussion wrote:
Hi,

I was reading the rules before registering and came across something
I didn't understand, I hope you guys can clarify this for me (I was
going to propose some change for the first part, but then I might be
the only one who doesn't understand this).

First, we have objections, consent and support defined in terms of a
switch (called n),  and the negation of them (without objection,
consent or support) is expressed as n=1. Why is this so? Wouldn't it
be way more intuitive that this was defined as n=0? Is it because in
the ruleset the natural numbers are defined (not explicitly if so, I
must add) as >0 rather than >=0? Also, what happens when n=2 in these
cases?
It's basically because it's trying to define the most useful case as
shorthand. Without 1 Objection is very common: it means that everyone
has to agree (or at least, nobody can actively disagree) for something
to happen, so it's used to handle uncontroversial situations where
everyone is unanimous. Without 0 Objections would not be a usable
mechanism, because there's always at least 0 objections.


Maybe it's because I'm a non-native English speaker (specifically: I'm from Spain), and "without objections" rings more natural to me and conveys the same meaning (though now I doubt if that's the case). So we could rephrase "without objection" to "without objections". A structurally simpler "fix" would be to add "without n objections (and its shorthand) is equivalent to with less than n objections".


As I said I'm raising this in discussion as I don't know if you think this deserves a change or not (maybe I'm the only one who trips with these things).

Thanks and sorry for sending several mails in a row, will try to clarify my thoughts before hitting "send".


Reply via email to