User blog comment:E-113:Xi/Corruption/Confidence Amendment/@comment-4949841-20121228195202/@comment-5142578-20130103165002

In response to Shousenka's post:

For the first ("A Corruption call must include recent evidence"), I think the reason is simple. Only recent evidence should count because it would be unfair to use past examples to incriminate someone. After all, if someone had already received a penalty for their past actions, why punish them again for those actions? Now, I'm not saying that everyone should forget about past actions. I'm just saying that they shouldn't be used as 'evidence' against a present case.

The second rule ("The accuser and accused may not converse anywhere on the wiki throughout the duration of the Call") is also simple. If the accusor and accused converse on the same page, an arguement (quite possible a nasty one) could easily break out. A headache that would rather be avoided, if at all possible.

For the forth ("Any vote for or against the Call must be given with reason."), we both agree that this is a must for Corruption calls. But for confidence, well, would it honestly be fair to question someone's capability for the reason that "they never answer my messages."? Like corruption calls, Confidence calls should have [legitimate] reasons as to why the person is incapable of their responsibilities.

For the fifth, I think you and I are in agreement with that one. Corruption calls should have a dependable authority figure to call upon immediately.

To E-113:Xi : The only thing I don't understand is this: Why a 20 [valid] vote limit? There couldn't be anything wrong with 21 or more votes, could there?