spoon-discuss: Re: spoon-business: why?

[Jonathan Downes <jwd@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

The way the point score is at the moment, there is are incentives to vote
against any proposal. These are stopping the proponent getting rules and
points, making the proponent lose points, any possibly picking up some
points for the opposed minority.

So unless I can see some benefit to me from a proposal getting up, and
that benefit outweighs the incentives to vote no, I should vote no.
'benefit' is not necessarily == points, it could as easily be
entertainment value or whatever. Or it could be I'm a nice guy and I want
to make life easier for the hardworking Administrator. But on
'non-controversial' issues, my assumption was that the proposal would
certainly get up, so my vote wouldn't stop, so I might as well go No and
try and pick up some opposed minority points.

I suspect lots of other people had similar thoughts, and I can't really
see this changing too much when you resubmit the proposals. As things
stand, it seems to me that being 'non-controversial' isn't ever going to
guarantee a win.

Regards,

Jonno.

On Wed, 28 Feb 2001, Joel Uckelman wrote:

> Why did people vote against P400, P402, P403, or P408? I'm confused by 
> this, since all made changes that I presumed from the lack of comment were 
> non-controversial. Was it to gain points, prevent me from owning more 
> Rules, because they were flawed, or for some other reason?
> 
> In any case, since the problems they address still exist (e.g., R346 is 
> quite broken), I'm proposing the whole batch again, with the same text as 
> before.
> 
> -- 
> J.
> 
>