Bronzeman won a majority in Old School RuneScape and lost anyway
On this page
Old School RuneScape's Bronzeman vote got more yes votes than no votes and still failed. A change put to a vote in this game needs 70 percent to pass, which is a much higher bar than a simple majority. Jagex's own post-vote note, published 21 August 2026, confirms the majority and the shortfall.
Two things to know if you have never played. Jagex, which is the studio behind the game, puts big proposed changes to a public vote, and the cache for this one says the Bronzeman poll "fell short of the required 70% supermajority". Bronzeman is a self-imposed mode that blocks buying from other players.
What the studio said it did
| Detail | |
|---|---|
| Result | Majority yes, below the 70% bar |
| Threshold | 70%, described by Jagex as the required supermajority for this poll |
| Studio's advance knowledge | Jagex says it can see results before they are public, and prepared for this outcome |
| Immediate action | In-game survey, live from 11:15 UTC on 21 August |
| Proposed change | An optional question in future votes asking why a player voted as they did |
| Next step | An update once the studio is confident what, if anything, should happen |
Our take: what it means for players
We are going to defend the threshold, and then criticise how it was used.
A 70 percent bar is the single most valuable thing this game has. It is why the world still feels like something its players own rather than a product shipped at them, and it is why a studio cannot quietly reshape it in a direction the community hates. A mode that more than half of voters wanted and fewer than seven in ten did is exactly the case the bar exists for. Jagex publishes no percentage, only "a majority" and the shortfall. The bar held. Good.
Where we would push back is the design of the vote rather than its outcome. Jagex said it saw the result coming and had prepared for it, and that it now wants to ask people why they voted. Asking why after the fact is a survey. Asking why on the ballot is data. The studio's own note says this information is "now much easier for us to process with the improved polling system we have", which raises the obvious question of why a proposal this contested went out without it. A failed vote costs the community the wait and costs the studio the work, and both are avoidable when the disagreement is legible in advance.
The tone deserves credit. Jagex asks everyone to focus on "where did we go wrong, and what needs to change in the future". That is the right target. Our reading is that the mode failed because the pitch did not answer the objections, and blaming voters would have been the easy move.
For anyone tracking the discussion, the studio points at the 2007Scape subreddit, the Steam forums and its Discord, and at the Old School RuneScape Wiki for the reference material.
What's next
Nothing is dated. The survey opened at 11:15 UTC on 21 August, with no close given. Jagex said it would return with an update once it knew what should happen, and as of writing it has not. So the calendar carries nothing for Bronzeman, and will not until there is a day to carry.
Common questions
Did the OSRS Bronzeman poll pass?
No. Bronzeman is a proposed self-imposed mode that blocks buying from other players. Jagex says a majority of players voted yes, but the vote fell short of what it calls the required 70 percent supermajority. Jagex has not said what happens next, only that it will return with an update once it is confident what, if anything, should.
What is Jagex doing after the failed Bronzeman poll?
It opened an in-game survey from 11:15 UTC on 21 August, the day of the result, to capture why people voted the way they did. Jagex said it will come back with an update once it understands what, if anything, should happen next.
Will future OSRS polls ask why people voted?
Jagex says it hopes to add an optional question to future votes asking for the reason behind a vote, and that its improved polling system makes that data easier to process.
Written by 0hp from the publisher's own announcement, linked above, and every specific in it was checked against that page by a second pass before it published. Independent, and not affiliated with the publisher. Dates are announced or labelled as estimates. How this site is written, and how to correct it.
