(08-06-2020, 02:37 PM)scorycory Wrote: It's the 70%+1, it essentially means that we need HO approval to implement a rule even if every single GM votes yes. If HO were more public representatives rather than being internally chosen it wouldn't really be an issue to me but you can essentially blockade any rule you don't personally like by appointing lile minded HO members who will vote alongside you. I love you though @infinitempg, you're my favorite HO member(don't tell the other)
why i love you too <3
I do have to disagree based on the fact that this does prevent GMs from ramming through something that obviously benefits them and not the league. If GMs wanted to say "hey, we're going to force expansion to be through the draft only and we lose no one" and all agreed to vote yes, we wouldn't want that to pass. You are right that it requires at least one HO's approval to pass and that HO would basically be able to "blockade" a rule, but I would argue that's part of the design?
I don't have a problem with more "representation of players" from HO - though the logistics of doing that would be tricky. I'm not totally comfortable just having users vote a new HO in (that's how we'd get @jimmyGOAT10 as an HO member), but maybe a single elected HO voted on by teams? I don't know. If I can find the time, I will try to release my personal votes on this and my reasoning for it, but don't hold your breath because I don't have a lot of time.
The other thing is that 70% and GM+1 tend to be the same, and if HO can finally get more than 4 members it would require more than just GM+1 anyways. A good rule that passes should have broad approval regardless, and so 70% seems like an appropriate number.
![[Image: 55457_s.gif]](https://signavatar.com/55457_s.gif)
