I like the idea, but this is likely to fail in practice. How do you decide whether something’s part of a timing scam or legitimate timing? Even for the purposes of deciding when to do something?

Not to mention, that non-admins can usually bribe or just ask an admin to process a proposal at a particular time; there’s normally at least one willing to cooperate.

Do we need suggestions as part of the Core Rules?

Basically, this would provide an actual reason for why an admin might be de-adminned.

Couple of notes:
~ I like the fact that Admins can use timing to their advantage; as ais523 noted, it is acceptable for non-Admins to get assistance in a timing scam.
~ I don’t like ‘should’s in the core rules, with the possible exception of 1.11 (which should remain, but remove the “may ban” bit).
~ I am voting as a Citizen with on this. I ask that all Citizens refrain from voting deferentially on this, since I don’t like influencing core-rule changes in my position of High-Programmer.

We usually shoot down a proposal if it’s clear that the enacting admin would be at a significant advantage. Let’s just try to avoid crafting proposals that an admin could abuse (or that every admin could abuse equally, so that a clever scam could be undercut if a rival admin got there first), rather than forcing admins to lie about their motives and behaviour.

It also seems a bit introspectively brain-melting - if I log in late at night to see that a proposal I didn’t like has timed out with a slim vote in favour, but decide I’m too tired to process it, is the ruleset really going to mandate me picking apart that decision to check it for “bias”? (And if I find any, to stay up late and process it rather than going to bed?)

ugh.

i like the fact that having the responsibility of being an admin comes with some benefits