El 14/02/2020 a las 18:06, James Cook escribió:
On Thu, 13 Feb 2020 at 13:06, sukil via agora-discussion
<agora-discussion@agoranomic.org> wrote:
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".
"Without objection" and "without objections" both sound okay to me. I
prefer the first, but I don't know why. Maybe I'm just used to it.
Sorry about the "unless" in Rule 2124, which I guess is contributing
one of the negatives. I think I'm responsible for that phrasing. It
just seemed like the easiest way to phrase it, given that it has to
appear in a list with other conditions.
- Falsifian
It kind of is, but I can understand the reasoning behind that. By the
way, could I have submitted a CFJ with this same question? I kind of
don't see where the limit is between discussion and business. It
probably doesn't help that I'm reading both the rules and gameplay at
the same time :) .
