I feel like this still leaves a lot of broken scenarios with the rule

is pointing out that someone made a mistake so they can fix it “cooperation”?

Is taking a snap in an area you know another player might be able to also take a snap in “cooperation”?

I’d rather we explicitly define what is allowed rather than leave it so unknown

This is a proposal to explicitly define “the posting of votable matters and casting of votes” as being allowed.

right. But there are still a bunch of other scenarios that are unclear.

Which to me signals the blanket “no cooperation” leaves too much confusion. We need to explicitly define what we mean by cooperation.

To me, the difference between this Proposal and Clucky’s is that, with Clucky’s it repealed No Cooperation and then added explicit prohibitions, meaning that if we missed something then there’s no room for debate.

With this Proposal, we start with “do not co-operate”, whatever we think that means, and then add explicit exceptions to that. We are also free to add explicit examples as they come up for debate, but the point is that there has to be groundwork for that debate, i.e. the fact that a “no co-operation” rule exists in the first place.

So if there are explicit callouts needed for “what is co-operation” we can add those over time. I would support such additions to the existing rule rather than replacing it.

But isn’t it better to have the debate now?

Right now, it seems highly likely people are playing under two different understandings of the rules. This means the dynasty is likely to end with either someone feeling “I thought doing X wasn’t legal so I didn’t do it, but turns out it was” or “I thought doing X was legal so I did do it, but turns out it wasn’t”—both of those are end games I think we should do whatever possible to avoid

as its unnecessary (voting on CfJs and proposals is not actually a form of collaboration), and if anything would make BAMPAM or other “help out me and my friends” scenarios which should violate no collaborations suddenly legal