Here’s the tweet for those who are inclined to discuss on twitter:
I think it’s also important to think about the newcomers to Cosmos governance. Sure it can seem very rote and redundant to explain what each option means but it makes the governance process more accessible overall. There were a lot of discussions and explicit confusion from involved community members about what NWV meant, now imagine if you’re just trying to get your feet wet? I do feel that it’s important to make sure we don’t bloat the governance process with needless procedure but prop 75 seemed necessary therefore we’re not in favor of nullifying prop 75.
No one follows proposal 75
“No one follows proposal 75”
Distinguishing between opinion and fact is not “Optional.”
Your assertion that “No one follows proposal 75” seems to stem from personal opinion rather than concrete data or evidence. Such a claim without adequate support merely reflects individual bias.
To claim that no one follows Prop 75, it’s necessary to substantiate this assertion with evidence or data showing that most community members do not adhere to the proposal’s guidelines. Lacking this evidence, the statement remains nothing more than an opinion rather than a fact.
Why should your opinion be given any greater weight than that of the full Cosmos community as a whole? Acknowledging the logical failure of your statement is necessary because it’s a biased generalization.
This fallacy occurs when you draw a broad conclusion based on limited sample size, inadequate evidence, insufficient research, and/or presenting a biased viewpoint. You commit this fallacy “by asserting that no one follows Prop 75” without providing any single thread of evidence, resulting in a false conclusion.
To contribute to a constructive and informed discussion within the community, it would be more effective to differentiate between individual opinions and actual facts, ensuring that your claims are supported by sufficient evidence. In this instance, providing data or examples demonstrating how the community does or does not follow Prop 75 would be beneficial.
Where is the data to support this outlandish claim? Please present it, and prove it.
Perhaps a “No With Veto” result on the new Prop 796, would be a poetically justified outcome and can serve as a definitive and unequivocal testament to demonstrate the significance and importance of keeping Prop 75 and its original intent.
yo you’re chatgpt or care too much
How about staying on topic and just responding to the points presented in my posts? That would be a much more productive use of time. You have not provided any credible information, data, or responses. If your position is correct, then you should be able to support it with factual information.
1 Like
Well, you sound human now, so sure.
OK, so the reality is that no one follows prop 75, best illustrated by informal systems having a 2 hour long podcast about the hub and prop 791, then claiming that it was spam/unrelated.
So I just prefer that it works how the software specifies.
Does this make sense?
Your claim that the specific example cited from an “Informal Systems Podcast” discussing Prop 791 proves that “nobody adheres to Prop 75” is a logical error. It is a generalization, where the conclusion is drawn based on a single instance, rather than a representative sample or sufficient evidence.
The fact that an Informal Systems Podcast discussed Prop 791 and claimed it was spam/unrelated does not indicate that the entire community disregards or fails to apply Prop 75. An opinion expressed in a podcast does not provide a direct connection with how community members utilize the “No with Veto” option when voting.
To make a convincing case, you need to present actual aggregated data showing that the majority of the community consistently does not follow Prop 75. Relying on a single example does not prove a trend or represent the broader behavior of the community.
Moreover, even if your claim is true, a single instance, or even a small minority, of Prop 75 not being followed does not justify nullifying the proposal. Instead, it might suggest a need for better communication or clarification of Prop 75’s guidelines within the community.
Prop 75 has broader applications and implications than just preventing spam. Your attempt to use a highly emotive argument to sway community opinion against an unsubstantiated claim is not supported by hard evidence.
Your example does not provide sufficient support for nullifying Prop 75 based on the assumption that no one follows it. Your argument is based on a logical error and does not effectively refute the importance and purpose of Prop 75.
Furthermore, you have not addressed any of the other relevant points raised in previous responses. Relying solely on emotionally driven arguments without a basis in reality is not convincing.
It is your obligation to substantiate your claims with due diligence, which includes supporting your arguments with aggregate data that demonstrate its accuracy and factual basis. So far, you have not met even the most basic minimum standards.
I challenge the greater Cosmos community to carefully examine the potential motives behind the desire to nullify Prop 75. Nullifying Prop 75 does not align with the best interests of the broader community.
However, Nullifying Prop 75 could prove very advantageous for a select few with self-serving interests / objectives to benefit from weaker governance practices and to advance their agendas. This campaign to nullify Prop 75 is about weakening community governance so that self-serving interested parties can exert greater control. Don’t fall for this Trojan Horse Smoke Screen tactic.
Prop 75 bolsters robust governance practices by reinforcing the decentralized control of the Cosmos Hub, which ultimately serves the entire community’s best interests.
?
Really sir, I don’t get your objection
the code always works how it is built and vote options should reflect that. I don’t see this having a meaningful outcome on any gov decision, because right now, validators already use the veto as it is programmed, not as 75 dictates.
You’re asking for data on fleshy human matters, and this isn’t possible. Can you provide data in support of 75?
respectfully,
-Jacob
As the presumed author of Prop #796, the responsibility lies with you to provide evidence for why Prop 75 should be nullified, not with those who support its continuation.
One compelling piece of evidence in favor of Prop 75 is the fact that the community passed it. The proposition’s language clearly conveys its purpose and rationale, highlighting the community’s intent behind its adoption.
If there are no significant differences between nullifying Prop 75 and adhering to “the code definition of veto” then please clarify your understanding of “A veto will just mean veto,” as I have previously addressed the circular logic and ambiguity surrounding this statement.
If there are indeed no substantial differences, then Prop 75’s existence should have no impact on the status quo, and nullifying it is unnecessary.
In the event that Prop 75 is nullified, what specific definition would replace the current interpretation of the veto? This information is essential for a transparent and informed discussion within the community.
1 Like
I’m sorry there’s a massive difference. The code defines veto very clearly. Proposal 75 does not.
This is a surprise =)
I was the first and the only one fully against 75 and any definitions for the votes. Everyone was pro the prop. Oh well, the irony…
I will be pro any proposal to nullify anything that has a resemblance of hard coding social definitions
1 Like
Sorry I’m a little late here. I think you’re right, any definitions for governance vote meaning should match what the outcome of the code is, and also reflect any official documentation.
For reference, here is a clear, but broadly applicable definitions for the votes that were ratified on Evmos and seem to have done well. Every proposer can just copy & paste the following:
- Yes: indicates approval of the proposal in its current form.
- No: indicates disapproval of the proposal in its current form.
- Abstain: indicates that the voter is impartial to the outcome of the proposal.
- NoWithVeto: indicates stronger opposition to the proposal than simply voting No. If the number of NoWithVeto votes is greater than a third of total votes excluding Abstain votes, the proposal is rejected and the deposits are burned.
Informal will be standing by our original prop 75 vote and will be voting no to prop 796.
3 Likes
ZadiGadi, why you do dis T_T
This prop is a clear NWV king.
Then what’s up with informals vote on 791?
I’m good as long as NWV is not indicated as a signal for exit.
1 Like
I’m kind of interested in seeing unnecessary rules eliminated, and that’s why I’m interested in seeing 75 nullified.
I find that in regular human society, we have lots and lots of rules that generally get ignored and I think that we can genuinely do better.
So part of this is looking at our situation, looking at the rules that govern our situation, and eliminating rules that people simply don’t follow.
Hey, I just wanted to say that basically, this proposal exists because I realized that you were right and at least speaking for notional, we were wrong.
1 Like
In our ongoing discussion regarding the nullification of Prop 75, you have had ample opportunity to provide clarity on your claims and to address the questions raised.
It is essential for you to support your stance with factual evidence and logical reasoning. However, up to this point, you have not effectively done so.
In your latest comment, you now attempt to draw a parallel between “regular human society” and the Cosmos community. However, this analogy is not directly applicable to the matter at hand.
Making a generalization about societal rules being ignored does not provide relevant evidence or context for how the Cosmos community has applied the “No With Veto” option in its governance process.
Your conclusion, based on unrelated examples, is another logical fallacy known as a “false analogy.” By attempting to make a connection between two unrelated situations, you are obscuring the issue and diverting the discussion away from the critical points regarding the Intentions and Purpose of Prop 75.
To engage in a productive and informed dialogue within the community, I encourage you to please provide clear, factual evidence and sound reasoning to support your stance on nullifying Prop 75.
Let’s nullify it because no one follows it 