Board Thread:Internal management/@comment-25368137-20161107190920/@comment-24024415-20161107194902

Yes, having every vote 2:1 seems very unfair for votes to be passed, but there is supposed to some resistance to change. Changes should have an overwhelming support from the community, if it does not, then it likely has something wrong with its introduction or its overall function. Adding a new featrure or the removal of one, no matter how contrived or minute it seems should be treated with some sort of system to prevent bad eggs from sneaking past and making the user experience lesser.

Now, all that said, I do not know the actual effectivety of the 65% rule. I can certainly see it falsely shut down some controvercial or unpopular opinion votes, but there should be more examples of how this system fails rather than pure speculation on my front.

Not to mention how having no counteractive measure on votes for large changes could be disasterous, leading to damage and long periods of repair afterwards. The rule is technically flawed, but having no hump to go over with the community leads to a straght road that could leak a few bad ideas here and there. And unless there is solid proof that this rule has screwed over some actually beneficial changes, then I'm going to remain neutral.