Wooble wrote: > On Thu, Jul 17, 2008 at 6:00 PM, ais523 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> On Thu, 2008-07-17 at 15:57 -0600, Roger Hicks wrote: >>> Proposal: Chambers II >>> AI: 3 >>> II: 1 >> Please propose this with an II of at least 2, or you'll get an automatic >> AGAINST from me. Changing the proposal system so radically (or at least, >> moving a lot of things around that will need to be checked for >> loopholes) requires an II of at least 2 in my opinion. > > Why should II matter at all?
It's an objective acknowledgment of the significance of the proposed changes. IIRC, a proposal to return to a straight Disinterested / Interested system (basically reducing scope from 0-to-3 to 0-to-1) was recently voted down, so people generally still want this (even if no currency earnings currently treat 1-to-3 differently).
