On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Kerim Aydin wrote:
>> We should make the rare, easily
>> noticed and corrected case (second-class persons doing the actions) the
>> case with extra reporting requirements, not the everyday one that is
>> leading to the vast
Kerim Aydin wrote:
> We should make the rare, easily
>noticed and corrected case (second-class persons doing the actions) the
>case with extra reporting requirements, not the everyday one that is
>leading to the vast majority of trivial and annoying errors.
F
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>Oh, just noticed you didn't like this either. This was intended. If the
>vote requires only 1 vote of support, you can resolve by reporting only 1 of
>the votes of support, even if there are more (because the additional votes
>don't change the outcome). -Goethe
No, you've
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> If you
> require someone to report "up to 3 votes", that sounds like it could
> be satisfied by reporting one vote even if there are actually four.
Oh, just noticed you didn't like this either. This was intended. If the
vote requires only 1 vote of suppor
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> Since we need the implicit vote, or some equivalent mechanism, to deal
> with partnerships, I think reporting it would be helpful in making sure
> it gets done right.
I see nothing wrong with implicit reporting of the implicit vote. It's
pretty easy to tell wh
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>This is where we fundamentally disagree. Since dependent actions were
>foolishly made a subclass of agoran decision, the reporting burden has
>been ridiculously high and prone to error...
I don't disagree about this principle. I'm happy for the reporting
requirements to be re
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
> I recognised that you intended to avoid that part of the reporting, and
> I deliberately didn't include it in my version because I didn't think
> that change worthwhile.
This is where we fundamentally disagree. Since dependent actions were
foolishly made a sub
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>I think you misunderstand my intent (meaning that yes, the wording is
>poor). The initiator should not be required to report eir own support,
>it's a common mistake and annoyance.
I recognised that you intended to avoid that part of the reporting, and
I deliberately didn't inc
On Tue, 5 Feb 2008, Zefram wrote:
>> the tally of votes need only include a count of up to N valid
>> ballots other than the initiator's if the initiator's implicit
>> support is a valid ballot, or N+1 valid ballots if it is not,
>> even if there are more.
>
> I
Kerim Aydin wrote:
>[Since the fix is about reporting, not the count, keeps the current method
>of first/second class vote counting and eligibility,
I was going to suggest separating these two bits if it got any more
complicated.
> the tally of votes need only include a count of up to N
Draft III: Intelligent Dependent Action reporting, AI-2.
[Since the fix is about reporting, not the count, keeps the current method
of first/second class vote counting and eligibility, just changes the tally
report requirements for SUPPORT. Slightly ugly in the Rule, but prettier
in the exec
11 matches
Mail list logo
