I was wondering what people thought about potentially changing the word “REJECT” in reference to the “ADOPT” or “REJECT” wordage used in NNS governance voting to maybe “AMEND”.
For me “REJECT” is overly harsh sounding, sort of without redemption. Where as “AMEND” leaves room for that redemption at a later point.
Later perhaps we could attach messages to our vote that could outline amendments that we would like to see before adoption.
what do you think?
I wouldn’t be in favor of that only because of the meaning of the words. We need an option to show that people are against a proposal. The word “amend” is not a good fit for that based on its definition.
I was thinking that amend could just be a third option. If most voters choose the amend option, then it can allow the proposer to amend the proposal and put it up for another round of voting.
The benefit is that proposer won’t have to pay another 10 icp to put up another proposal and they’ll get the feedback that people are open to their proposal if some changes were made.
I completely agree that language can have a significant impact on how decisions are perceived, especially in governance settings. “Reject” does indeed sound final and perhaps even negative, whereas “Amend” feels more constructive and allows for future improvement. Adding the ability to attach suggested amendments to a vote could further enhance the decision-making process and make it more collaborative. Clear communication and thoughtful design—whether in wording or interface—can optimise performance and retention, especially in governance tools or websites. For inspiration on designing intuitive systems, you might find this guide on figma to web application insightful. It’s a small change, but one that could make a meaningful difference in fostering more positive engagement.