Nullify proposal 75

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.


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 :saluting_face: