On Sat, May 25, 2013 at 5:02 AM, Charles Walker <[email protected]> wrote: > Could you clarify when spivak is and is not appropriate?
As Machiavelli said, Spivak pronouns are singular. (And in singular, we use "e" rather than "ey".) >> This should only apply to decisions to adopt proposals. > > All decisions with AI are on proposals. Yes, but decisions with AI other than those to adopt proposals could hypothetically be added in the future, since the current rules differentiate "decisions with an adoption index" from "decisions to adopt proposals". There's no point in breaking that when you could just say the latter. >> I'd rather have a rubberstamp than two different forms of veto. > > Rubberstamp as the reduction of quorum, the reduction of AGAINST votes, or > both? I would avoid reducing quorum, since that can lead to scams and we usually make quorum. Doesn't matter whether it works by reducing AGAINST votes or reducing the adoption index or whatever; any mechanism could be interesting. > Initial VL is 5 (say), so the Chief Whip's VL becomes 7.5. So they can > cast 7 valid votes. But I'll include 'rounded down' to clarify. Fair enough.
