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

Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting

> On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 01:58:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
>  > Huh? Do you mean replace the entire social contract with that, or
>  > replace the text of the resolution with that?

On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:49:54PM -0600, Marcelo E. Magallon wrote:
>  Gosh.  Have you been reading the thread you are replying to?  By now it
>  should be obvious (to anyone paying even only half attention) what
>  Steve meant.

Oh, come one.  [Have you been reading the thread?]

Near as I can tell, "what Steve obviously meant" was self contradictory.
Though, the way he presented the ideas, it's easy to overlook the
contradictory bits.

And, yes, it's very appropriate to question the presentation of such
internally inconsistent ideas.

But that's already been done, in far more detail than we're dealing with
in this message.

>  The question is simple: "is there really a hole in the voting system
>  and is it exploitable?"  Branden thinks there is one (and until now
>  noone seems to have said otherwise -- unless I missed the message in
>  the noise, that is and modulo Manoj who's said he's going to manually
>  handle each attack) and that it is in fact open to exploits, if you are
>  determined enough to do so.

I disagree with this summary.  It's possible that Branden might disagree

Or: a voting system can't protect us from ourselves.  It's a method for
coming to agreement, not a panacea to keep us from being unthinking or
to keep us from being silly.


Reply to: