Ideosphere Forum
From owner-fx-propose@ideosphere.com Mon Apr 27 08:59:59 2015
Received: from ideosphere.com (localhost [127.0.0.1])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3RCxxM6029075
	for <fx-propose-outgoing@ideosphere.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:59:59 -0400
Received: (from majordomo@localhost)
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/Submit) id t3RCxx7v029074
	for fx-propose-outgoing; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:59:59 -0400
Received: from mail-wi0-f178.google.com (mail-wi0-f178.google.com [209.85.212.178])
	by ideosphere.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id t3RCxwXj029069
	for <fx-propose@ideosphere.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 08:59:59 -0400
Received: by wiun10 with SMTP id n10so88849926wiu.1
        for <fx-propose@ideosphere.com>; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:59:58 -0700 (PDT)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
        d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
        h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date
         :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type;
        bh=ed9fntSEzlmfcBCnHTVlOfi2cplL7OIwDoubSBf2lFk=;
        b=N9fTRVlAhqIDw90tTAJ7XDG/MTaT3VJW9xtiVaRlxhBs/tVMUGPNCWmOZ3KHkfj2vb
         QUekp07SqJFEVQ3sCu7ti/8A7mlO1uuxEoiOh7UQcTIyZ7/sKUmGcHaivkuCO9wp512X
         NbV/RtsIM9KMXqfX8PPAebrUiTqiB5rOoKBHDYf1RyTVnpnt27ENAXkfY4IjJu0Yg/9C
         tGk1rzO1mS2v6fdpCF71GpRVvYK/4TtNqtaeA7ocK8p31Ag+NLSOaN37ckVz/LvA3rO1
         61XGnSWOFbOcnWkk/rVgLlxtHCxi3L+beCxgSm9Cl+iXgz6UlhTUraXWgAOGk+r6c22z
         +I5A==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkNsoKIfKs0WwFmbgmnT1gZYvSikV/go626mW4bGDl0Ue1ijwYidXHL7Ut+W3p1R8ghZcGt
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.180.19.166 with SMTP id g6mr20420871wie.56.1430139597912;
 Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.194.82.99 with HTTP; Mon, 27 Apr 2015 05:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Originating-IP: [88.104.85.244]
In-Reply-To: <201504271201.t3RC11EI026723@ideosphere.com>
References: <201504271201.t3RC11EI026723@ideosphere.com>
Date: Mon, 27 Apr 2015 13:59:57 +0100
Message-ID: <CAJtAZxud3Q3UkFyc3k-oeW6NOH1=mdga-RruxOUSHoTznPcSog@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: fx-propose: Revision of Proposal: 'SSCBSA'
From: "chrisran.bma e-mail" <chrisran.bma@virgin.net>
To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec53f3a05b691770514b452b8
Sender: owner-fx-propose@ideosphere.com
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: fx-propose@ideosphere.com

 
 >"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

Back to regular message display

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