Good old “more than half”.

indeed.  I like one mode of this proposal, but not the other.

Well, I like one mode of this proposal and not the other too.  But I’m willing to vote and to keep an eye on it so I change my vote if it’s looking like the wrong mode will pass.

I’m with Thelonious on this one.  Perhaps we could start using the form “More than half of the comments containing votes wihch were counted in favor of passing this proposal”.  That way only people whose final votes on the proposal were in favor of it could manipulate the outcome.

TAE, I’ve been doing exactly that for some now.  My usual wording is “If more than half of the counting FOR votes…”.  However, I recently got a “mild telling off” from the Arbiter for this behaviour.

Personally, I don’t agree with his rationale but for now I’m avoiding making multi-mode proposals where possible.

As you demonstrated in your own vote, you have to keep an eye on the proposal to make sure that your vote does what you want it to. And even then it’s still possible for a few quick votes to slip in while you’re asleep, and you end up having helped enact something that you didn’t actually like.

I suppose it’d be fair if these proposals required a quorum of FOR votes to include the keyword. But having rule changes potentially getting passed on half-quorum is extremely dodgy.

But having rule changes potentially getting passed on half-quorum is extremely dodgy.

At the moment rule changes can get passed on a single vote, let alone a half-quorum.

Oh, quite, and I hope the fix goes through even if, ahem, Bucky feels that the possibility of an obscure malfunction means that we should wait a while longer.

The problem is that I can’t vote for a proposal like this one without also voting for the optional clause to be taken as a half-quorum vote. I’d vote against anything that had a side-effect of causing a half-quorum vote on something that I thought was dangerous.

Not at all.
It’s the exact same as making 2 proposals at the same time, with the second doing nothing if the first one fails.

Vote on proposal 1 using FOR and AGAINST; Vote on Proposal 2 using “Effects” and “-”.

Would a more agreeable wording be “If the number of comments containing counted votes that also contain “Effects” is greater than the number of comments containing counted votes that also contain “Inert”?”

Yeah, it’s the same as making 2 proposals at the same time with the second being conditional on the first.  But Kevan and I aren’t claiming that we don’t find that just as annoying.  I’ll vote against a proposal I like to help prevent a later contingent proposal’s having an undesired effect.