Waitasec, whether a proposal modifies a Universal rule isn’t always guaranteed either way while people are voting.

For example, I think this this disables the safety clause, “If this proposal has no AGAINST votes, additionally modify Treaties [Universal] as follows:”

Or the proposal might attempt to modify a Universal rule that is repealed after the veto but before enactment - is it still vetoed?

Hum, true.

Because it removes the ability to convince people to change their AGAINST votes on universal proposals

if you think that ability is something we shouldn’t have, feel free to try and convince me I’m wrong =D

True, it’s an interesting mechanic - it just leaves us hanging pointlessly when someone is actually fully against something and won’t change their mind, and we have to wait 48 hours.

Maybe we should have a two-option system where AGAINST means “I’m blocking this for now, convince me” and VETO means “I’m actually vetoing this”.

I think a simpler solution would be to just declare a proposal unpopular if someone votes against it, rather than simply say it cannot be popular.

That way, it can still fail at the appropriate time. But a single veto doesn’t irrevocably kill things.

, anyway.