Should probably change it from state being possibly undefined to another field which just invalidates the state (like depth: number). Then check that this is 0 everywhere state is checked for being undefined now. Depth should increase every time the motion gets forwarded. Need to leave the undefined checks though, so as to not break old motions.

Add a special case for announcement posts, where the previous votes are added up and counted.

It should log normal messages in the council channel, and messages in a deliberation channel if it's configured

The scenario:
A motion has the majority set to two-thirds. The expiry time is 24 hours.
After 24 hours, the votes are 5 in favour, 4 against. The motion passes despite it not receiving the two thirds majority.
The solution:
When a motion expires, it should not pass based on a simple majority. It should pass based on the default majority, or, if one is set, the custom majority.

I absolutely love your bot. Do you have idea when you will be able to resume working on the multiple majority types? And do you have any plans on making this available for larger councils?

Upon forwarding -- right now this is always enabled

Would be nice if there was an option to delete the votes and only keep the final results of a motion once it concludes. Just to reduce clutter if you have everything in one channel only.
-- LoyaItyLeader

!motion --amend #30 text

Is it possible to set the councilor role to more than one role?

We are looking to have our Server Admins be the only ones who can start a motion, but those users are NOT allowed to be voting council members. I'd like to remove the restriction that the proposer must also have the council role. Or at least a way to mark an admin as a non-voting council member.

The current voting embed that happens when a member votes has all the previous members votes and comments. For someone like me who may have 100+ voting members that is going to get CRAZY big. I'd suggest that the vote does not show that kind of detail. It should still be maintained for transcript, etc. And perhaps a new command like !votetally or something that can trigger a list by admins or something. But I don't think think the running names and comments are required.

An error occurred while running the command: DiscordAPIError: Invalid Form Body
content: Must be 2000 or fewer in length.
You shouldn't ever receive an error like this.
Please contact eryn#0001

2/3rd, 4/5th, etc configurable majority types.

Ideally, there should be some mechanism to override this per-motion and indicate it on the motion itself.

The bot should remove the triggering command as most bots do.

It might be wise to also have some responses such as the voting embed to auto delete after 30 seconds or a few minutes so that the voting channel stays clean.

Ends motion based on current votes taking majority into account

Requested by Aaron Schock#0518

It would be really nice if we could add a new user to the Weighting by command. (!config add.weight 2312931929321912 3) and remove them from the Weighting in similar fashion !config remove.weight 12312312312312)

Where %1 is the userid and %2 is the vote total.

That will mean we can script that process more easily and removes the headache of maintaining a JSON file.

Make it so if creating deliberation channels is true, then you should be able to vote in that channel and not where the motion was created.

TypeError: Cannot read property 'majority' of undefined

Would be nice visual indicator for a Pie Chart to be displayed, if enabled in options for votes, where we could use the free https://www.image-charts.com/ API endpoint to host the images.

I could make a PR for this, if you're interested!

We have a Committee that starts the amendment process. Those people have a role called Committee Member and Council Member. Their Discord ID's have been assigned weighted votes. The Committee stars the process and then when approved it JSONs over to the Chamber Floor for deliberation and voting. We want the weighted voting to ONLY apply in the Chamber Floor, not the committee room. So maybe an easy fix is to have an allow weighted voting option for the council creation? And if its checked it uses the JSON and if not it doesn't and assumes 1 for 1. Obviously it would be great to have separate weights for each council if we wanted...but not a requirement.

There should be an option for votes to be displayed in a form similar to Poll Dancer, where instead of the voting progress being displayed every time someone makes a vote (which can cause a lot of clutter in the debating channel), a dedicated proposal channel holds that same information, but edits that message every time someone changes their vote - which could be handled either when:

1. A user votes through !aye / !nay / !abs commands, and a smaller acknowledgment is displayed; or
2. A user votes through reactions, if enabled by the Votum Admin, which will update the vote - only available for voting options that do not require a reason attached.

I could also work on a PR for this if you're interested!

Fixed in 6ffc3da

Two new motion options:

elect: user
role: role

New configuration points:

• election.enabled
• election.roles: json map (role id -> term limit). Roles not in the map are not electable. Role is removed after term limit is reached.

When majority.reached.ends is false in the destination council, a forwarded motion does not comply and will close when the majority is met.

Optionally limit !lazyvoters to users with the role

Here is some initial feedback/changes for the Deliberation Channels:

1. If a motion was given a title, that title should make it into the channel as either a description of the channel or as a note in the channel. Otherwise it just has the motion number.
2. The channel should be made inside of the category that the council lives in, not a new category named the same as the Council name.
3. The channel should inherit permissions from the category it is in. We allow read-only roles to watch the deliberations. Or perhaps add a config item for "watcher" that we can give permissions to.
4. The bot does not seem to be listening to votes in the deliberation channel. Ideally all business could be handled in the deliberation channel for that motion. (Which would let us have multiple votes going at the same time in the future.)

Not sure where to put a feature request, but it would help clean up the voting channels if the previous motion embed was deleted as the new one is posted after a vote.

2000 character limit on embed fields will cause the motion text to fail to send.

Need to either split the message up or truncate with a way to view the full response if the reader wants

Allow the default prefix of ! to be configurable

Here's a basic description:
Council consist of multiple subgroups. Each subgroup gets a single vote, but any of the members of that subgroup could, in th heory, send it.
Subgroups are identified by roles. However, there are other roles which don't apply to the subgroups (they apply to positions within the subgroups).
So, can it be done, and do you want to?

When a motion passes or fails, it can be moved to another council (maybe with different motion options)

when creating new councils in new channels, would be nice to have some inherited defaults shared across the server/channel category

There are two suggestions. However, since each of these issues is quite minor, I am condensing both into one issue.

1. All commands do not print any text when a council does not exist yet.
   Expected Behavior:
   Input: !motion newTextHere
   Input: !config reason.required.no true
   Input: !CouncilStats

Expected Output:

A council does not exist for this channel.

Observed Output:

No Output

2. archive command truncates motion description without a visual queue to signal the truncation.
   Expected Behavior:
   Input: !motion "this is a long string of motion text which exceeds 45 characters long and therefore should be truncated."
   Input: !motion "this is not a long string."
   Input: !archive #1-#2

Expected Output:

#1 Passed | this is a long string of motion text which...
#2 Passed | this is not a long string.
To view a full motion, run archive #1 where 1 is the number of the motion you want to view.

Observed Behavior:

#1 Passed | this is a long string of motion text which ex
#2 Passed | this is not a long string.
To view a full motion, run !archive #1 where 1 is the number of the motion you want to view.```

1. There should be a 'Chair' configuration point which can be assigned to a role, which has the authority of the Votum Admin role, except it only has that authority in the council it is assigned to.
2. There should be a configuration point which if toggled on, will prevent any user except for the owner, a Votum Admin, or the 'chair' from changing the config of a council (or killing motions that are not their own).

I was thinking about adding a poll command to Votum to replace Poll Dancer, and allowing emoji reactions for votes and essentially being more of a "chill mode" - poll doesn't end when a majority is reached and instead only has a set time, allows multiple options, and doesn't require reasons.

#2 has been open since Votum came out, and I still think having a list of options instead of just yes/abs/no would be a good idea, I'm just not sure the best way to implement this from a user experience perspective.

an !unvote command would be nice to retract a !yes, !no, !abstain vote on a !motion

also an option to disable !abstain as an option for all motions.

Auto pass motions when vote yes or no