Wiktionary talk:Votes/2019-03/Disallowing conditional voting

Allow a vote to override this

Some votes have been set up to incorporate a poll among supporters, wherein what this vote would classify as conditional votes are explicitly allowed. Wiktionary:Votes/2012-08/Foreign Word of the Day is a good example of this. There should be a note or clause that any vote can choose to allow conditional voting if set up to do so. —Μετάknowledge^{discuss/deeds} 15:55, 16 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus

I intend to vote against this as it seems to violate the principle of seeking consensus. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 08:43, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Vote closers should probably comment on such votes

If the conditions are silently disregarded, then other people may be misled as to how the voting worked and whether they too can apply conditions in future. Equinox ◑ 08:49, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

@Equinox: The problem I see with conditional voting is that if the condition is granted, some support voters might have not agreed to such condition. But if the condition is approved by all other support voters, then I would consider fair to change the vote's statement to contain the condition. If this vote contained a clause indicating that the premise can be changed this way, would it fix the problem? –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 14:42, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

I think that's fair to ask other support voters to approve the condition. פֿינצטערניש (Fintsternish), she/her (talk) 17:13, 17 March 2019 (UTC)

Will people be able to distinguish what a condition is and what is an original interpretation?

My concern with this vote is that people can vote saying “I vote X, understanding that …”, or “I vote X, expressing my support for a provision that Y, in so far as it will Z”. Such is later relevant for when you argue about the interpretation of rules, as being material for discerning the intention of the legislator. I find this vote suspicious in that it might be used to curb votes that are not intended to be conditioned but to specify the meaning of the act for historical and teleological interpretation, just restricting the freedom to vote more and freedom of opinion of the voting members more than necessary. What is necessary however is already in effect, as I have used to see it: Conditional votes are already invalid. Fay Freak (talk) 01:32, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I didn't understand what you meant. Does it concern you how conditions and interpretations could be confused? I guess that if a vote isn't clear enough so it requires interpretation, it will always be troublesome regardless of whether conditional voting is allowed or not. –Tom 144 (𒄩𒇻𒅗𒀸) 02:39, 21 March 2019 (UTC)