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

I have problems with these and also with the current system.

"A Corruption call must include recent evidence"; Why recent evidence? Sure any evidence past or present is viable. I wasn't aware the wiki had some sort of statute of limitations rule.

"The accuser and accused may not converse anywhere on the wiki throughout the duration of the Call"; This rule is absolutely ridiculous on any logical level. Exactly what possible negative effect or outcome could come of something like this, especially one that would affect the outcome of the call?

"These numbers may be altered by the authority figure running the voting process"; No, no, no, no, no. The number should be a preset, fixed value to stop any unfair calls.

"Any vote for or against the Call must be given with reason."; For a corruption call, yes. For a confidence call, what is there more to say besides "I don't have confidence in this guy"?

"A single authority figure may only be called out once every three months."; For confidence calls, yes. For corruption calls, ridiculous. That's like saying an admin is bulletproof for three months. This time limit should not be in place for corruption calls; if they've done something bad they should be called upon there and then.