On 6/7/20 10:29 AM, Alex Smith via agora-discussion wrote: > One partial fix that can be implemented right now, without any ruleset > changes, would be a change in the standard method for AGAINST votes aimed at > denying side effects (without disagreeing with the proposal): make them > conditional votes that resolve to AGAINST by default, but FOR if an AGAINST > vote would cause the proposal to fail. This makes the intent behind the vote > clear, and looks less like a judgement on the proposal or proposer (and also > removes the risk of the proposal accidentally failing despite everyone > wanting it to pass, Prisoner's Dilemma-style).
While you make a convincing case that there is a problem, please don't do this as a solution. If this becomes standard, every single assessment would be made so much harder. - The Assessor
