Of course it is. I never said it wasn't other than my own subjective opinion. If no one else shares this opinion then consider it dropped.


You proposed 4 rules and I had concern about one of them. It hardly constitutes a "mountain" of "bureaucratic red-tape" which "crushes people's desire to participate" if I simply propose modification to one of your proposed 4 rules.

Note that I freely admit to the use of exaggeration for effect, however I doubt I have often reached the heights of hyperbole that you achieved with that sentence.

In any case I'm agreeing that we need a standardized process we're simply discussing one point in your proposed process.


I'm not disagreeing with your basic arithmetic. I simply phrased this the other way, which is that option 1 received a clear majority of those that voted but the number of folks that stated a preference for option 1 is not a majority of the league.

There clearly needs to be some quorum requirement. If only 2 people voted with both in favor of the same motion then I doubt many people would be impressed by the unanimous vote. Reductio Ad Absurdum, certainly 2 is a number chosen to make a point, but what level of participation is reasonable to require? I would suggest that 50% participation is about the lowest bounds one could place on participation and still be true to the so called democratic process. Personally I think 75% is a better goal but you can only work with what you have. At least the current vote does (barely) satisfy the 50% quorum requirement.

Thanks for the Polish history lesson, however we didn’t have that big of an issue with achieving the 70% majority in the Metaverse Council. However your point about devolving into a debate club is perhaps subject to er… debate.

Look, I’m not trying to cripple the leagues ability to make a decision, I’m only expressing my own personal opinion that I’m uncomfortable with the idea that a bare majority of those that happen to be sufficiently interested enough to vote could enforce an unpopular decision on a significant minority. I’m not even necessarily suggesting that the current 10 to 5 vote doesn’t exceed a level that is reasonable to be presumed a “significant majority”.

Note however that at the time I made my first post on this subject the vote was 9 to 5 which was the same results as the previous vote when Neilo made essentially the same comment that I made and wondered aloud whether or not that was a clear enough margin to enforce action or at least whether a runoff election between the two major choices was warranted.

At that point I argued that 9 to 5 seemed sufficiently strong enough to proceed. In this case it was the admittedly subjective “strength of preference” issue that caused me to argue the other way. Does 9 to 5 changing to 10 to 5 make a difference in my opinion. Yes it does, not an all encompassing one but clearly as the margin goes up my objection goes down. However having raised the issue of quorum and a desire for some kind of margin to be considered a majority, I still feel these are valid topics for consideration in your proposed “standardized process”.

In lieu of your proposed voting rule 2,


I propose the following.


Hardly a “mountain”. Note that the both the current and previous votes clearly are valid based on my proposed criteria.

we need a standardized process. Again, we can’t have the voting process be stifled by bureaucratic red-tape and a mountain of rules which crushes people's desire to participate.
You proposed 4 rules and I had concern about one of them. It hardly constitutes a "mountain" of "bureaucratic red-tape" which "crushes people's desire to participate" if I simply propose modification to one of your proposed 4 rules. Note that I freely admit to the use of exaggeration for effect, however I doubt I have often reached the heights of hyperbole that you achieved with that sentence.

Yes, thank you...the Master has set an instructive example. No, thats not too onerous, I just want to make sure we guard against administrative paralyzation.