On 6/7/2020 8:05 AM, Jason Cobb via agora-discussion wrote: > 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 >
I think the way we dealt with this in the past was at the proposal level not the vote level. When Pending fees are a thing, make it so an author can create a proposal with a new type of proposal switch set, that means "this proposal is cheaper to pend, but the author gets no rewards from it". -G.
