| ID | Category | Title | Creator | Status | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 223 | legacy | When challenging an irc @op action, or voting about removing @op power from someone, said @op may not veto. A single person who got affected by the action may not start the vote, or veto. Violating this rule decides the most negative outcome of the vote for the violator. | divVerent | PASSED | 4:1(0 abstained, 0 didn't vote) |
-
| User | Decision | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| divVerent | YES | it would be sufficient if we instead accepted challenging a veto as standard procedure in response to vetoes of a vote against yourself. That way, you essentially can't veto a poll against yourself, but CAN turn it into a core team vote immediately. If this idea here by me is accepted, I consider the poll moot and you can consider this vote a no. |
| CuBe0wL | YES | But I'm only fine with the first part, as both divVerent and Samual raises very good points (div0 about veto against yourself, Samual that core team challenges are there for a reason). |
| merlijn | YES | |
| Mirio | YES | |
| Samual | NO | This rule is a strange exception upon the voting system which has been followed exactly the opposite in the past (example, user removal from core team), and I don't think it is the correct way to handle things. Vetos exist for a reason, and if someone challenges the vote then so be it. |