Join the new world

Personally I would go for the 3rd option. The 1st one is a lot of spam and work for the CoC, the 2nd one requires an external platform, while I would prefer to keep everything in-game. I think the 3rd option would solve the current chaos in some of the votes and it is just a small effort to actually stick to the standard ballot.

I don't think any change to the process is necessary, unless it's some personal behaviors. I will support option 3 of those presented.

I think ballot can be confusing, since sometimes people vote at the same time plus there are people adulturation votes by mistake, I personally prefer a simpler sugestion just an yes/no/neutral no room for mistakes there and if people say some synonyms like sometimes hapens count it as a null vote

That is actually quite simple. I will add it as the in the article mentioned 'fourth option'

Good point! And good alternative, I support this option.

I don't think that would constitute a change in comparison to current rules. The Laws state already that yes/no/neutral are the voting options.

3. The voting options are ‘Yes’, ‘No’ and 'Neutral'. The latter option does not count for reaching a majority but does count for reaching the quorum.

It's up to the Chairman to be flexible in this or not, and I think a degree of flexibility is fine and reasonable in this.

So when someone does not "follow the proper voting form", and he only says "YES" instead of "YES: 7*; Neutral: 5; No: 9", his vote will not be counted? And what if he copies the ballot, but makes a mistake, what then (which, if you ever type on mobile phone, is more than likely)? Or forgets asterisk? Have some decency and use common sense - the ballots didn't work even during times, when people could edit them - and even in those times, they were not compulsory. Adding them now as a compulsory move is a step backwards in our free democratic process, which certain CoC of the future can abuse in order to annul votes they dislike, just because "they will not follow proper protocol".

Also, from legal standpoint:

1. How does your proposal fit into current legislature? What articles of the law will change and how? Have you made sure to smooth all contradictions in the law, which your options would bring?

2. How do you legally plan to make a vote with three options + No + Neutral? Not saying that such votes should be banned from existing, but current legislature does not support votes, whose options are different from Yes/No/Neutral, besides CoC vote.

I don't see any need for a change, we still manage to count the votes so there is no problem.

The first CoC vote of this term saw a problem with some votes being multi-interpretable. This would not have happened if people would simply have stuck to voting yes, no or neutral.

Sorry mate, but the interpretation of those votes wasn't rocket science.

Interesting propoaals.

I believe the best possible change to make voting and validating the results much more.fluently would be through 3rd option however, with changes and amendment needed.

The real change for that would ditching the Copy and Paste method of Yes/No/Neutral * and the simple replacement of Yes No or Neutral alobgside accepted use of Y N A A=Abstain/Neutral

Without a doubt this new method would avoid recounting and fixing all the time.

I don't believe any modification to process is required. What counts is the intention of the democratic elected representatives; discounting votes merely due some procedural error or 'templates' or not understanding 'da' to be yes would be a sad return to the situation of the past, in which Chairmen for example ignored votes that undoubtedly were clear in intention.

On the other hand, how hard is it to just reply with yes no or neutral?

Not that hard, I never managed to do otherwise. Nevertheless, I can't recall a recent case in which a positive or negative intention wasn't clear despite the different usage of words. I'd hate to see the day again in which votes are discounted again due to not following the ''template'', spelling errors or 'stubborn' Congress Members that nevertheless make their vote preference very clear. Democracy > Procedures

Alright, apperently I am feeling a bit differently about this than most people. But you make a good point in your last statement, the laws should never impede democracy. And I can respect if people feel that way about this law change.

Ill go with option 4 mentionned above following the comment if fmcv.

The voting options are

Yes
No
Neutral

Type one of these three words to vote (capitals don't matter).

Problem solved. CoC will count at the end of the vote.

Or just keep it as is and multiple interpretable votes will be ignored.

I think that is already the case. If one posts nonsense in a vote that in no way shows a clear preference, it would/should be overlooked. Hence I fail to see the problem that needs to be fixed in this debate/vote a tiny bit.

En geen Nederlands meer? Dat nooit!

Prima, ja/yes etc. was just quickly typing..

So no law change required 🙂

If I perceived this debate correctly then the vote will be about implementing the fourth option: voting by simply typing Yes/Ja, No/Nee, Neutral/Neutraal. Any synonym that clearly indicates an intention like voor/in favor, tegen/against, onthouden/abstain, will also be accepted.

The result of the vote will be presented by the CoC in the known format