although I doubt anyone will get anything off of it.

Also. Proposals only need a quorum of votes to pass, so this would only trigger if a contentious proposal further down the queue kept a popular proposal open for voting for a long enough time.

And even then, there’s some incentive for nobody to submit that final FOR vote, if all it changes is that the proposer gains IE.

The spirit of it is stellar, but in a metagame where we tend to game the system, I fear this will just add a chore to do to proposals which are actually desireable to everyone (like cleanups and such), but now have to vote against at some moment.

For example:

• Instead of Voting For: If there are no votes Against yet, I vote Against and say “I’ll CoV to For once someone votes Against.”
• In case of voting Against: I just vote against.

It just adds a chore to do.

per Kevan; “passes with no against votes” would solve any objections I have though, and would vote for if it got resubmitted with that wording.

Its too easy to block, and it gives a non-negligible advantage to admins, who control the exact timing of passes and fails.

[pokes] Historically, that kind of thing encourages constant and unobjectionably bland “fix” proposals (if you ever have a free proposal slot, you may as well correct some grammar) and queue-slowing tactical voting.

I’m okay with the former - why not fix grammar if you have nothing better to do? But I see why the latter would be a problem on such a proposal.

For all the reasons everyone’s said.