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

[Daniel Lepage <dplepage@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

}}

--
Wonko

_______________________________________________
spoon-business mailing list
spoon-business@xxxxxxxxx
http://lists.ellipsis.cx/mailman/listinfo/spoon-business