Concept for discussion: Down in Flames
(intentionally not a proposal. Really, this time.)
The idea being that if a Proposal collects “X” number of consecutive “AGAINST” votes and no “FOR” votes at all, then the Proposal may be Failed even if it has not yet timed out nor collected a quorum of votes.
I am aware that there are good reasons not to clear a proposal out of the queue before its turn simply because the proposal’s author has S/K’ed it. In this case, though, if a proposal is so bad that no one other than its author supports it and it quickly runs up a lot of negative votes, then why trouble to keep it in the queue.
Perhaps if a Proposal is Failed by this method, then the Proposer’s author is locked out of making any more Proposals (even if he would otherwise have an open proposal slot) for some period- say, 24 hours from the Failing of the Proposal.
Unrelated concept: In our ruleset, the final action that is taken upon a Proposal is to Enact it, to Fail it, or to Veto it. But we don’t have a generic term that collectively describes all of these alternatives. Such a term may be useful. I suggest “Resolved” (i.e., the Proposal is Resolved”, the Admin Resolves it, etc.)
about the other.
Kevan: he/him
Are you suggesting this as a core rule, or as a mechanic for the metadynasty? It’s easier to talk about proposals if you actually propose them (and a little more sportsmanlike to take the risk of proposing it undiscussed).
“Vetoing” isn’t an action, so far as I can see - Rule 1.5 just lists “enacting” and “failing”. We get by with “enact or fail”, but if you think we’d benefit from defining “resolve” in the glossary, go for it.