On Sat, 15 Feb 2020 at 14:57, Tanner Swett via agora-business <agora-busin...@agoranomic.org> wrote: > > 8341* Alexis, G. 3.0 Support of the Person > AGAINST; I don't see the purpose of this, and it's confusing for "With > 2 Support" to technically mean "with 3 supporters, but you count as a > supporter". > > —Warrigal
I think you may have missed the original explanations. The primary purpose of the proposal is to amend the rules of Agoran consent to better line up with how voting usually works. Currently, if an AI=2 proposal is submitted and the author and one other player voted in favour, and one other player voted against, then (assuming equal voting strength) it passes. But with Agoran consent, if someone attempts to do something with 2 Agoran consent, and one other person supports and one objects, then the action cannot be performed. In fact, it can't even be performed with two other supporters if there is a single objector. The initiator is ineligible as a supporter, and on top of that, the requirement that the supporters be greater than the objectors means that 2:1 is not enough. So the two parts are to make it so that the initiator can support (you can vote for your own proposal) and to make it so that when N>1, a "tie" is resolved in favour of allowing the action. Again, this is just to bring it into consistency with how proposal voting works. However, if the initiator is ineligible to support the intent, then they simply do not count. They must find an additional support to replace their own. This is again the same as what would happen if someone was ineligible to vote on their own proposal. But then it makes sense to apply the same logic to N support. And in particular, if we had something such as "A Doodad CAN be awarded to any player with 2 support; the recipient is ineligible to support this intent." then the typical case would be that three people other than the recipient would be required to agree: the initiator and 2 other supporters. But if someone wanted to award it to emself, then e would need to find an additional friend to do so. I think, personally, that "with 2 support" is still the more logical name for this, and if you disagree, I'd prefer to deal with that by voting on a separate proposal rather than voting this one down. -Alexis
