AVID:Requests for Comment/New RfC passing requirements

Should we make new requirements for an RfC to pass? I think we should make it so that if there are more support votes than oppose and abstain votes, that will the RfC will pass. if it's a tie with the same amount of support votes as there are oppose and abstain votes, the admins can decide whether the RfC should pass or not. And if there are more oppose and abstain votes than there are support votes, the RfC will fail. So do you think my idea will improve the RfC system? Sickminecraft45 (talk) 15:53, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Support
Can do, I guess. Gilby1385 (talk) 17:59, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Abstain
I was thinking a little different. I think we should have "whatever side has the majority, the RFC will close that way. If support as the majority over both, it passes. If abstain has the majority over both, no consensus. If oppose has the majority over both, it fails. This makes it a little more fair and easier to close. (• USER TALK! •) 16:05, 30 December 2022 (UTC)


 * I might consider that as an alternative! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 16:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Oppose
There isn't much of a difference with this system other than the tie requirements (but instead of admins, why not allow one more vote to settle the score?). The pass/fail requirements are basically how every voting process, including RFCs, function. Camenati (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

per Camenati.  Logohub   (talk) 17:17, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Comments
And if this RfC passes, this will be the last RfC under the current system! Sickminecraft45 (talk) 15:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)