Daniel Lepage on 31 Jul 2003 23:00:43 -0000

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

Re: [spoon-discuss] Re: [Spoon-business] NWEEK 46 BALLOT

On Thursday, July 31, 2003, at 05:00  PM, Rob Speer wrote:

On Thu, Jul 31, 2003 at 09:08:06PM +0100, SkArcher wrote:
{{__There's a hole__

add the word 'one' between the words 'any' and 'proposal' in the philosophical mandate for Selective Lobbyist


I await the CFI....

The sentence is this:

"A Selective Lobbyist may cast N extra YES or NO votes on any proposal
that e did not make, where N is equal to the number of proposals e
ABSTAINS on that ballot, with a limit of 2."

There are two interpretations of a crucial part of it:

A Selective Lobbyist may cast N (extra YES or NO votes on any proposal...) A Selective Lobbyist may cast (N extra YES or NO votes) on any proposal...

I must believe that the intent of the rule was the first interpretation. You get extra YES or NO votes by being a Selective Lobbyist, and you can
cast each one on any proposal you did not author. You can cast N such
votes, where N is at most 2. You could cast them on different proposals
if you wanted to.

No, it says 'any proposal', not 'any proposals' You get at most two to a single prop; no splitting it up.

The whole Selective Lobbyist mandate is messed up, anyway. Abstaining on two proposals is not a fair price for two extra votes. Abstaining on 2/3
of the ballot might be. Then it would actually be "selective".

But then it's just too damn powerful anyway.

I agree.

I propose:
__Enough Already!__

Destroy the Selective Lobbyist Philosophical Mandate.



spoon-business mailing list