Proposal: Self-killing CfJs
veto’d
Amnistar
Adminned at 11 Feb 2009 06:45:58 UTC
Add the following text to the end of the second paragraph of core rule Calls for Judgment:
A CfJ may be failed at any time if its author votes against it.
veto’d
Amnistar
Adminned at 11 Feb 2009 06:45:58 UTC
Add the following text to the end of the second paragraph of core rule Calls for Judgment:
A CfJ may be failed at any time if its author votes against it.
okay first, why def votes? If you don’t care, don’t vote def on this unless you’re voting def because you think Arth’s opinion is more valid then your own.
Second:
There have been CfJ’s in the past where the result of the CfJ is different then that author expected, but is in tune with what the nomic wants, thus the cfj was passing, the author realizes his mistake, but the cfj would still pass with his against vote. This prevents such a situation from happening.
This is one where I would defer to the person who has the most experience; that person isn’t arthexis, but Kevan.
Amnistar gets it. And this could actually be used maliciously, where someone CfJs to fix an urgent loophole (with heavy, tacked-on penalties for anyone who exploits it), then just self-kills it and uses the loophole themselves, at an opportune moment.
Haha, the only DoV that has taken place this Dynasty happened under the circumastances Kevan described, only with a proposal rather than a CfJ, obviously.
Self-kills are mostly to speed things; they’re more a scam seed than usable legitimately. (For instance, if I had wanted to scam to stay as CallForJudgement as long as possible, the obvious method would have been to submit the proposal myself and self-kill it at the last moment. That would probably have got me banned, though, and I’m not that insistent about what my name is.)
Why shouldn’t a CfJ writer be able to vote against? For example, if there were 2 obvious distinct ways to correct something, I might put up a CfJ for each, and vote against one of them.
Qwazukee:
Hmm, I don’t know. What does Kevan think?