User blog comment:E-113:Xi/Corruption/Confidence Amendment/@comment-4748628-20130504051644


 * An authority figure deleting evidence against them is to be reported immediately to another administrator or bureaucrat, as it is considered breaking policy.
 * This doesn't belong on this page.


 * The accuser and accused may not converse on any blog, forum, etc. dealing with the Call, as to not sway community decision.
 * This should be removed completely. There is no reason to prevent freedom of speech. If they get in a fight, they can be blocked.


 * Any vote for or against the Call must be given with reason. solid reasoning involving to related evidence. Plain "For" or "Against" votes will be ignored. Reasons for Confidence may include any piece of evidence for or against the accused, past or present. Reasons for Corruption may only include evidence for or  against the accused from after the most recent Corruption Call made on the accused.
 * This makes more sense to me. We can't tell users what their reasoning should be.


 * A single authority figure may only be called out for a vote of Confidence once every three months. Corruption will be dealt with for any instance of the authority figure breaking policy.
 * Giving any amount of immunity is a bad idea to begin with, let alone something of that length. Telling users they can't call their elected staff out for incompetence because some user already did it 2 months ago is not democracy.