Times out and fails 5-9. -scshunt
Adminned at 29 Jan 2013 19:10:41 UTC
Add a subrule to rule 2.2 ““Unanimous” Consent”, call it “Fast Veto” and give it the text:
If there exists a comment from the Speaker on a given pending Proposal that contains both the ARROW
and VETO
icons, then that Proposal may be failed by any Admin.
I like how it only works if the Speaker wants it to; he could just never use it.
It may lose my credibility but I will never vote for the speedy veto. Read my lips: no speedy veto!
I wouldn’t have voted for it, but we already have fast passing and failing.
Yeah, and that mechanism applies to vetoes as well. It’s sufficient; I don’t want the emperor deciding to hand proposal slots back by fiat.
But remember that the speaker no longer has a vote before 48 hours. Opinion could still be expressed this way.
(explicit arrow casting)
I’m usually against fast veto, but as RaichuKFM said, we already have fast thing, and I don’t like having to cast a vote on a Proposal that has been vetoed already.
I don’t want to have to vote on a proposal that’s going to fail anyway to avoid losing credibility; I’m not supporting this for automatic slot return; I usually don’t expend my allotted slots. I’m in favor of the clearing of the cache aspect. Again, I would not usually support this, but in a dynasty that is focusing on messing with core mechanics, especially voting, I think this is appropriate.
oh wait, you’ve realized that punishing people who vote against passing proposals is *also* a bad idea?
I like how “Lets have a dynasty that messes with the voting mechanics” has turned into “lets try to add every single terrible way to mess with voting mechanics we can”
Speaking of which, a sizable amount of us are looking at a loss of Credibility. But I’m going down with this ship!
BlogNomic is powered by pMachine ExpressionEngine.
Patrick: