Bad wording, it currently requires a proposal to reach qourum to pass.

also, remember that the current method used to have conditional voting on an issue, counts against votes as well as for votes for the conditions.

If more than half of ALL VOTES (which is still qourum) meet the condition, then it is applied.

Ach.  I’m rusty.  Someone propose a better version of this.

This isn’t an official proposal, either, because it’s not in the “proposal” blog-entry category. We can forgive a little rust.

I’m not sure there’s an easy way to legislate this, without inadvertently blocking useful conditions (like “make the following change only if Proposal X passed”) or other complexities that we might have a good reason for at the time.

It’s probably better just to make sure people realise that “more than half of comments” doesn’t mean “for all intents and purposes this is a separate proposal”, before they vote. If they’re still happy to vote them through, realising that, then there isn’t really a problem.

I don’t call shenanigans (even with Rodlen’s “add a stat that doesn’t do anything, and oh, if more than half say X, add a rule for attacking other players”), I think people are are genuinely misunderstanding how this works.

Case in point with Amnistar’s comment: That only works if every single player casts a vote. If a proposal enacts at current quorum, after twelve people have voted, then an “if more than half” rider needs only seven people in favour of it for it to enact.

But people are sorta expressing their favor by voting for the proposal. If you have noticed, I have voted against proposals because I’m strongly enough against the “if half say this… do this” even if I’m not actually against the proposal.

I agree that it is abusable, but I think it also has its uses when properly applied to trivial add-ons.

Yes, but let’s say taht it was proposed as two seperate proposals kevan, and the same people vote for Both.  You end up with the first proposal passing with 12 votes FOR the first (presuming that it is the case that they all vote for) then in the second proposal, 7 vote FOR and 6 vote against, it still passes.

I’m failing to see where the issue is.

I guess I just don’t like the second possible qualification for passing proposals:

“It has been open for voting for at least 48 hours, it has more than 1 valid vote, more than half of its votes are FOR, and it has not been vetoed or self-killed.”

Was this extant back in the day?  (e.g. 2005)  I feel like the enacting qualifications used to be more stringent.

PerlNomic’s proposal system is almost exactly BlogNomic’s without DEFERENTIAL or the possibility to pass timed-out proposals without quorum. Every now and then, it gets stuck badly waiting for people to idle so that quorum can be reached; that’s what I’d expect here if that change were made, maybe not now but some time in the future when the nomic is less active. (It also has what I’d probably call an AMEND vote; if a proposal has more AMEND votes than NO votes, its proposer can amend it, which resets all votes cast on it. Voting AMEND on your own proposal when it has no NO votes is the usual way to meet that condition.)

ah, that’s different, if you want proposals to only pass with qourum that’s different.  But it would require us to track voting, not just comments, for people idling.

[Amnistar] Quorum means that as soon as we’ve got more than half the players in favour of something, we can enact it without waiting for the votes from the remainder, because they wouldn’t make any difference. In the example you give, the second proposal wouldn’t immediately pass with 7 votes to 6 - it would sit there until more people voted on it, or until it timed out. By folding a second proposal into the first, you aren’t giving those people a chance to vote on it.

[Truman] Pretty sure the timeout’s been there since day one, to stop the game from grinding to a halt - if a voter hasn’t bothered voting for two days, it’s maybe safe to assume they’re abstaining (and probably on their way to idling out).

Feel free to try bumping the “1 valid vote” number up, though, if it bothers you.

Oh I see what you mean about Quorum Kevan. You raise a good point. I’ll have to think on this one.

that makes more sense, I’ll hav to think about it.

Hmm, I don’t think we need any change to the 1 valid vote thing at this point in time.