On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, omd wrote:
(d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the
outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case of
a tie at any stage during the instant runoff, the vote
collector CAN and must, in the announcement of the
My gut reaction is AGAINST; ratification of an incorrect document was how I
shed my Champion title after an unwanted win.
—the Warrigal
On Wed, 15 Jul 2015, Tanner Swett wrote:
> By the way, should I retract this proposal and resubmit it with a
> clause installing me? I mean, I'm planning to take the office anyway.
I'll take your word for it this time... but I'm watching you... :P
Hey omd, been getting 404s on the agoranomic archives for the
past couple days... -G.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 12:28 PM, Kerim Aydin wrote:
> Hey omd, been getting 404s on the agoranomic archives for the
> past couple days... -G.
I think it's actually since yesterday, when I switched webservers... I
tested http://agoranomic.org, but forgot the list stuff.
Should be fixed now.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
> I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner
> (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a
> winner.
Ah, yes. Thinko.
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:10 PM, omd wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 6:15 AM, Ørjan Johansen wrote:
>> I thought (and Wikipedia agrees) that IRV stages without a majority winner
>> (which includes any with a top tie) choose (one or more) losers, not a
>> winner.
>
> Ah, yes. Thinko.
>
Honestly
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd wrote:
> (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the
> outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case
> multiple valid preferences tie for the lowest number of
> votes at any stage, the vote colle
On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:25 PM, Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 16, 2015 at 2:22 PM, omd wrote:
>> (d) If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences, the
>> outcome is decided using instant-runoff voting. In case
>> multiple valid preferences tie for the lowest
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015 16:41:23 -0400
Sean Hunt wrote:
> On Jul 16, 2015 16:40, "Luis Ressel" wrote:
> >
> > Player Used spending power (this week) total spending power
> >
> > ais523 12
> > aranea 58
> >
I don't like the lack of encapsulation here.
Under this proposal:
Rules 2154 and 2444 say "The valid options are ordered lists of one or
more valid preference."
Rule 955 says "If the valid options are ordered lists of preferences,
[instant runoff stuff happens]."
I think this would be better:
R
Also, has Agora tried approval voting lately? I think it's snazzy.
—the Warrigal
I vote:
> 7763* scshunt 1.0 Official References
AGAINST; this seems like it doesn't accomplish anything at all
> 7764* scshunt 1.0 Prime Ministerial Perks
FOR
> 7765* scshunt 2.0 Centralization
FOR
> 7766* scshunt 1.0 Timelines
Conditional: FOR if ais523's vote i
On Thu, 16 Jul 2015, Luis Ressel wrote:
> I hereby distribute each listed proposal, initiating the Agoran
> Decision of whether to adopt it. For this decision, the vote collector
> is the Assessor, and the valid options are FOR and AGAINST (PRESENT is
> also a valid vote).
Could you be a little
14 matches
Mail list logo
