I've heard it explained why this isn't a contradiction, but I must admit I didn't quite get it. How is one to vote against this proposal, say? If you are already voting that no one gets an airdrop?
a good way to think of the proposal system as a whole is not "I can only vote for limited options." It can be tricky to wrap your head around, but you can support anything and everything you may want. What that means is it basically you're lifting the things you wanted funded (or to show your support for) up past a threshold. The things lifted the highest are the ones that will be funded in descending order.
Now, in the case where we're using the proposal system like this- visually collecting an opinion for or against things without any funding- you need to be able to compare a yes and a no. Whichever options end up highest are the ones that reflect the most support backed by stake. In the case of airdrops, as the main post lays out, the baseline is the "no airdrops" proposal. Any number of airdrop proposals can be made, but they need to be measured against something. Voting for the "no airdrop proposal" is voting no to everything. To vote specifically against something, you would need to vote up the proposal it is being measure against, to make it harder to get over the threshold. "I am voting against airdrops, but I am also supporting this specific one so I will vote for it as well." You would then be basically negating your no vote against whatever you voted for in addition.
This is very wordy and may not help at all, so here's a little visual of what's happening:
But when you get have specific 'yes' airdrop cases and a general 'yes' airdrop case, then your 'no' vote is applying to two different class of things. Same for two different specific 'yes' airdrop proposals. It's still not making sense to me. If I want to vote 'no' to the general airdrop to everyone, but 'yes' to the more specific airdrop case, then my 'no' vote is nulling my 'yes' vote. How does that make sense?
The secondary airdrop proposal is a blanket proposal for 100's of people with no vetting, I voted for no mass blanket airdrops (#103) how ever I am more than open to individual airdrop proposals if they make their case. So based on their behavior and the fact that I respect the people vouching for them I will vote to allow airdrops to these 4 individuals(104). Voting for no mass secondary airdrops doesn't hinder the ability to make individual airdrop proposals or even for someone to make another mass drop proposal its all up to us voters.
The "No airdrops" proposal would really be better named "Threshold for airdrop proposals". If you want the threshold for other airdrop proposals to be high then you vote for it, and if you want the threshold to be low you don't vote for it.
You can want the threshold to be high in general but still support one proposal, in which case voting for both is not a contradiction.
This applies to the rest of the proposal system too (with the "return" proposal 0 being the threshold).
My support for @lupafilotaxia who I know as a recognized and constant producer of scientific content, as well as being a prominent writer in the environment section of the Cervantes Ciencia magazine.
I've heard it explained why this isn't a contradiction, but I must admit I didn't quite get it. How is one to vote against this proposal, say? If you are already voting that no one gets an airdrop?
a good way to think of the proposal system as a whole is not "I can only vote for limited options." It can be tricky to wrap your head around, but you can support anything and everything you may want. What that means is it basically you're lifting the things you wanted funded (or to show your support for) up past a threshold. The things lifted the highest are the ones that will be funded in descending order.
Now, in the case where we're using the proposal system like this- visually collecting an opinion for or against things without any funding- you need to be able to compare a yes and a no. Whichever options end up highest are the ones that reflect the most support backed by stake. In the case of airdrops, as the main post lays out, the baseline is the "no airdrops" proposal. Any number of airdrop proposals can be made, but they need to be measured against something. Voting for the "no airdrop proposal" is voting no to everything. To vote specifically against something, you would need to vote up the proposal it is being measure against, to make it harder to get over the threshold. "I am voting against airdrops, but I am also supporting this specific one so I will vote for it as well." You would then be basically negating your no vote against whatever you voted for in addition.
This is very wordy and may not help at all, so here's a little visual of what's happening:
But when you get have specific 'yes' airdrop cases and a general 'yes' airdrop case, then your 'no' vote is applying to two different class of things. Same for two different specific 'yes' airdrop proposals. It's still not making sense to me. If I want to vote 'no' to the general airdrop to everyone, but 'yes' to the more specific airdrop case, then my 'no' vote is nulling my 'yes' vote. How does that make sense?
The secondary airdrop proposal is a blanket proposal for 100's of people with no vetting, I voted for no mass blanket airdrops (#103) how ever I am more than open to individual airdrop proposals if they make their case. So based on their behavior and the fact that I respect the people vouching for them I will vote to allow airdrops to these 4 individuals(104). Voting for no mass secondary airdrops doesn't hinder the ability to make individual airdrop proposals or even for someone to make another mass drop proposal its all up to us voters.
The "No airdrops" proposal would really be better named "Threshold for airdrop proposals". If you want the threshold for other airdrop proposals to be high then you vote for it, and if you want the threshold to be low you don't vote for it.
You can want the threshold to be high in general but still support one proposal, in which case voting for both is not a contradiction.
This applies to the rest of the proposal system too (with the "return" proposal 0 being the threshold).
My support for @lupafilotaxia who I know as a recognized and constant producer of scientific content, as well as being a prominent writer in the environment section of the Cervantes Ciencia magazine.