Ideosphere Forum

Re: fx-propose: Revision of Proposal: 'SSCBSA'

Author: chrisran.bma e-mail
Conversation: fx-propose: Proposal: 'SSCBSA' ( prev | next ) reply!
Topic: fx-propose ( prev | next )
In-Reply-To: FX's post
Date: Mon Apr 27, 2015 08:59 am
FX
chrisran.bma e-mail
FX



>"There are 9 supreme court justices, so for example
if the outcome is 4-3 in his favour (ie he wins by 1 vote, with 2
abstentions), it will pay out 4/9*100% = 45 (rounded up in case of a
fractional amount)."

This seems odd to me, 4-3 is significantly better than 4-5 conferring a
different overall result, yet the payout is the same.

I would suggest:

In the case that either Philippon wins or loses his case, but the Supreme
court hears the case,this claim will be judged on a scale based on how many
supreme court justices vote in favour of Philippon, divided evenly among
those Supreme Court Justices that heard the case and delivered a verdict
one way or the other.

If for example of the nine Justices, one did not hear the case or died
before delivering a verdict, two abstained and the remainder voter 4-2
in Philippon's
favour then the claim will pay 4/6*100 = $0.67 after rounding to the
nearest cent.


At least this way successful outcomes for Philippon will pay more than 50
cents. Winning the case with 1-0 and 8 abstentions yielding a payout of 12
cents looks decidedly too low. OTOH $1.00 payout looks too high so maybe
abstentions should count as a half vote so 1-0 7 abstentions and one not
hearing case pays out (1+7/2)/8 = $0.56 This payout would more properly
reflect a narrow win?

I am not familiar with supreme court so my examples may be addressing
things that are extremely unlikely.

Regards
Chris Randles

source



All trademarks, copyrights, and messages on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Forum: Copyright (c) 2000-2001 Javien Inc All rights reserved. Distributed under the GPL