comex wrote: > Proposal: Extra votes? (AI=2) > > Amend the following paragraph in Rule 2019: > > e) Wielder of Extra Votes. The Wielder of Extra Votes at the > start of an ordinary proposal's voting period has a voting > limit on that proposal of 1.4 times what it would be > otherwise (rounded to the nearest integer, breaking ties > toward odd integers), rules to the contrary notwithstanding. > > by replacing "odd" with "even". > > [Surely I deserve _one_ extra vote.]
That only applies if there's a tie for which integer is nearest, i.e. if the fraction part is 1/2. What about just rounding up? 1 -> 1.4 -> 1 2 -> 2.8 -> 3 3 -> 4.2 -> 4 5 -> 7 -> 7 8 -> 11.2 -> 8 > Proposal: Refactor appeals opinions (AI=1.7) > > Amend Rule 911 (Appeals Cases) by replacing: > > As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each > member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating > a valid and appropriate judgement to assign to the case -- only > the first such published opinion for each member is used to > determine the outcome. Each member SHOULD include arguments for > eir choice of judgement. > > with: > > As soon as possible after a judicial panel is assigned, each > member of the panel SHALL publish an appeals opinion indicating > a valid judgement to assign to the case -- only the last such > published opinion for each member is used to determine the > outcome. Each member SHOULD choose an appropriate judgement, > and include arguments for eir choice. > > [Change the SHALL to SHOULD, mainly to avoid tortoises using the > appropriateness requirement. Use the last opinion so that justices > can change their minds.] You may also want to prevent the panel from judging based on opinions until the end of the ASAP period, otherwise the third justice's first opinion still locks in whatever's current at that point.
