SkArcher on 31 Jul 2003 21:52:09 -0000

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

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

31/07/2003 22:00:55, Rob Speer <rspeer@xxxxxxx> 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.
>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, which is why I'm using it.

I am proping to close the little loophole i found, but an overall revision of Philosophical mandates mat be in order anyway


spoon-discuss mailing list