I say only the writer equivalent should be allowed to do this.

well, maybe.

Oh, and someone needs to enact Increased Mobility V2.

However, the writer equivalent isn’t always an admin.

And the writer equivalent can’t veto spam CfJs and DoVs.

and I vote we include rules that further clarify how something can be determined to be spam.  Something like:

A post may be considered to be spam if any of the following are true:

The post does not affect the rules or the gamestate of blognomic.
The post contains a repetition of the same word in succession more than two times.
The post contains sentences that do not make sense

etc.

As with real-world spam, if you tell the spammer how you’re detecting it, they can be careful to work around it. Which would probably be quite a fun Dynasty in itself.

I’m not sure I want to come back into a Dynasty where any admin can veto my DoV on the grounds of an unqualified adjective. (“I fed the HTML into my Bayesian email filter, and it said 93% spam.”)

I think it wise to agree with anyone who has 5 dynasties named after him.

Unless it’s all a trap to earn my sixth.

“The post contains sentences that do not make sense”

“Hi, I’m from Afghanistan.  That sentence makes no sense to me.”

Would be quite a feat for an idle Member of the Staff.

  even after reading the debate.

I am strongly, strongly AGAINST this because of the sheer potential for abuse.  Especially since we seem to have relaxed our standards for new admins.

COV
I trust Rodlen, but not every admin.

I’m trustful.

abuse potential

S/K, I’ll make a better, less abusable version.

I have two ideas:

*Rodlen may automatically kill what he considers spam
*If X valid votes include the word “Spam” with them, the CfJ/Proposal may be failed automatically

The latter may be abusable, but not as abusable as this and requires an overall agreement.

The former just requires trustworthiness.

Why do you get auto kill powers? Your not a super admin

Lets see…the former is Kevan’s original suggestion slightly modified, and the latter is abusable, but not too abusable.

I’ll make my proposal an option between the two, unless there is a clear consensus over here.

The former was just my translation of what your current, unwritten rule seemed to be.