Not sure that this makes a huge difference.

Would “may be marked illegal” make it actually illegal? There’s a distinction.

I don’t see the need to complicate and create a new status for CfJ (and possibly other Votable Matters).

Admins can already mark the post as ‘Failed’ and mark with “Illegal post”. I think that is sufficient.

So

The concept of a CfJ being “illegal” is entirely undefined by the ruleset.

(It may be worth dropping the bizarre “automatically”, though, and changing “that has no effect” to “that would have no effect if it passed”.)

CoV.

per the above

Well, illegal posts don’t exist at all, from the ruleset’s point of view. You couldn’t even say “a Divinity who makes an illegal CfJ loses 4 Prominence” or something like that, you’d have to word it as “a Divinity who makes a post purporting to be a CFJ, but which is not a legal CFJ”...

CoV So what is a legal CfJ? There is a lot of leeway in the rule. So one would in extremo end up with a CfJ judging whether a preceding CfJ is legal. But does is this case of “urgent attention”?  So is this CfJ actually legal?
—> Keep the status quo and apply sensible reasoning.

@Blacky: this reminds me of when a DoV was failed on the basis that the person who made it didn’t actually believe that they’d won. (Is that still possible?)

I don’t think it helps…

(Per all of the above)

, because the change seems unnecessary to me.