(04-08-2021, 08:42 PM)HumanSanity Wrote: Cross posting what I said in #leg-lounge:

Is there any concern about the quorum requirement in the context of the vote recommendations section being used to artificially block recommendations.

For example, in the current 7 region PfS, regions A-C are for a recommendation, regions D-F are abstaining/unreachable in the 24 hours window, region G is opposed. There's a 3/4ths majority of the regions active/opinionated in favor of the recommendation but region G could choose to abstain/not vote in order to defeat the recommendation despite being in the clear minority.

I understand the necessity of the quorum requirement in the context of new members but less so for recommendations and the vote algebra is different for a simple majority than a supermajority

So, to be perfectly honest, there was no such concern beforehand, though I did bring it to discussion.

First, on the topic of the numbers: With 7 regions, there are 4 scenarios where an abstain brings something else than it did before. I'll go through all of them; for brevity, I'll use the format <Aye>-<Nay>-<Abstain/Absent> to show scenarios.

• 3-0-3 going in, a malicious Abstain/Absent vote would sink the proposal when before it would have passed. However, if any of the Absent votes then submits any non-abstaining vote at all, it will pass anyway (either 3-1-3 or 4-0-3, both with quorum met and 75%/100% For respectively), making this a gamble with low chances of success.
  
• 2-1-3 going in, a malicious Abstain would sink the proposal. Another delegation coming in would bring that to either a 3-1-3 (pass in either scenario) or 2-2-3 (fail in either scenario). An outright nay instead would bring it to 2-2-3, which also fails, so it's not worth going for abstain at all.
  
• 2-0-5 going in, a malicious Abstain would sink the proposal. Another delegation coming in would bring that to either a 3-0-4 (see first example) or 2-1-4 (see second example). An outright nay leads to 2-1-4 which also fails, so it's not worth going for abstain at all.
  
• 1-0-6 going in, it's already failing quorum requirement by a large margin anyway.
  

So basically, the specific scenario you described is the only one where a malicious Abstain is even worth it, and is a gamble because not only can it then be brought to pass by any non-abstain vote by a until-then absent delegation, it's also an unlikely scenario to occur - I've yet to see a recommendation vote that didn't easily pass the new quorum requirement.

Second, the general feeling when I brought it up was that if this scenario were to actually matter (i.e. somebody decides to use a malicious Abstain rather than Nay), it would merely be a symptom of a bigger problem within the alliance or at least that specific member.

(04-10-2021, 01:21 PM)Rebeltopia Wrote: When it comes to the addition of members, why even abstain, if an abstention will count as a "nay"?

If it fails quorum the first time around, there will be a second vote later, so in that regard there is a functional difference. But even if that was not the case, it'd be better to not admit when there is so much ambivalence. Adding a new member has a high threshold for passing because it's meant to be more a consensus in the first place.