[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: supermajority options


On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 09:23:42AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 11:01:32AM +0100, Jochen Voss wrote:
> >  A = change the scoial contract and remove non-free
> >      (Requires supermajority)
> >  B = try to nurture and increase non-free
> >      (Requires no supermajority)
> >  C = further discussion
> > 
> > it could easily happen that A get's kicked out and B wins then.
> > (Exmaple: 200 ABC, 102 BAC, 101 CAB)
> What's wrong with B winning?  B defeats C by 302:101 and A doesn't
> satisfy supermajority.  If you think something else should happen,
> please explain why?

Previously you claimed the following:

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 05:59:37PM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> In fact, there are a number of insincere strategies around quorum,
> but we expect that they're not important because people using those
> strategies can only cause the default option to win, and the default
> option is just a short delay until the next vote.
> What would you think of an implementation of supermajority which has
> this same general characteristic?  [I ask this because Anthony Town's
> most recent implied draft presents an implementation of supermajority
> with exactly this property.]

With the above example I want to refute this claim.
In the example the supermajority requirement causes a
non-default option to win.


Attachment: pgpGaEJ4tfIgX.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: