Not really sure when voters would be expected to use this, and I’m a little uncomfortable for the tangle this could get the queue into (if we fast-track something without realising that it would overwrite a rule that an older proposal was innocently amending), but it’s an interesting idea.

Proposals can be written to conditionally deal with currently pending proposals, but they can’t be written to conditionally deal with proposals that haven’t been written yet. Not to mention a conditional proposal could itself get fast tracked and get passed before the proposal that its waiting on…

If you *really* need to change something before the proposal queue clears use a CfJ.

[Clucky] It only messes up if a quorum of players agree to mess it up, though. I don’t know how much we should trust ourselves.

Right, thats my part of my point though, if you have enough people willing to do this you have enough people willing to push a CfJ through. It just seems redundant.

CoV

Sorry for the quick change, I guess I’m not really leaning too far one way or the other.

I don’t really have an opinion about fast veto, or fast self-kill, or whatever fast failing, but I believe it’s important that successful proposals are enacted with respect to the queue.

, partly because out-of-order enactment is hard to verify.

out of spite for http://blognomic.com/archive/urgent_proposals/

[Clucky] Except that we would frown on people using CfJs for trivial game purposes.

CoV