RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Nominations/2012

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

[edit] That time of year again

Are you Nominating these people Blue? AceModerator 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

I am! Picon small.pngAcer Blue 04:24, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
Always good to see Ace's collection of propoganda posters. I trust we'll get some awesome ones this year? CrundyTalk nerdy to me 09:02, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
There's a good one already on the campaigns page. Sophiebecause liberals 09:23, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
If I had the skillz I'd be on it. Actually, I'd convince someone to nominate me and then use my posters to rule the wiki with an iron fist. CrundyTalk nerdy to me 12:31, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Explanation of voting method

I have a "block" in being able to comprehend how the "single vote" method system works. But this time instead of my usual whining about not understanding it, I've consolidated it to a couple of pertinent questions that may help me understand better. If anyone could answer one or both of these questions, I'd be most appreciative. Thanks! Refugeetalk page 22:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  1. Does the person to whom I give my first (highest) vote get a larger "share" of vote, or "weight" if I vote for that person alone, than they would if I vote for several people?
  2. Does each person I vote for get a "portion" of my vote, or is the vote strength not diluted by the sheer number of votes I cast? In that case, how is it apportioned?

(Apologies for my lack of comprehension. :-( and please don't split the questions, but rather answer below) Thanks! :-)
...

No; each vote you cast, no matter how many, carries equal weight. However, on your ranked choice ballot, the first person you help elect will be the only person who receives your vote. In other words, you cast multiple ballots, but only one ends up going toward the vote count. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 22:23, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Only one vote counts? Refugeetalk page 22:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, you can only contribute a vote to one winning candidate. However, there are two conditions in which your vote won't be applied, 1) if the person has all ready won, or 2) if it is impossible for the person you voted for to win. We then take everyone's vote who did not count, pick their next choice and recalculate until all seats are filled. 50.130.133.249 (talk) 22:55, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hmmm... so, that brings up a new question. If I think that my top choice is a sure thing to win, without my vote, then it might be wiser to cast my vote for my second choice, thereby ensuring both my favorites win. ? Refugeetalk page 23:05, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Yes, like all election systems known to man, tactical voting is possible. 50.130.133.249 (talk) 23:16, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Hah. And here I thought it was an original thought on my part. :p Thanks for the link - but it's lead to yet another question (sorry). Here is the quote: "The Single Transferable Vote - If one's top-choice candidate is elected, only a fraction of one's vote will be transferred to one's next-favoured candidate. If one feels the favoured candidate is certain to be elected in any case, insincerely ranking the second candidate first guarantees them a full vote if needed. However, the greater the certainty of the first candidate being elected, the bigger their likely surplus, the higher the fraction of the vote that would be transferred to the next candidate, and hence the lower the proportionate benefit of tactical voting." - Ok, this talks about a "fraction of a vote" being transferred to another candidate - so now I am confused - I thought it was stated above that only one vote counts. ? What fraction of a vote gets transferred? What percentage? Thx Refugeetalk page 23:25, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
This is where thinks can get complicated but I will try. The idea behind STV is surplus votes from a winning candidate are transferred based on the next preference choice. The question becomes how do you transfer the votes. Two main approaches exist, one is a random transfer the other is a fractional. Lets say there are 40 votes for a candidate and the threshold to win is 20. So there are 20 surplus votes. Random transfer just picks 20 random ballots who voted for the winner and transfers them to the second preference. This is simple, but has the effect of altering the election outcome based on the order the ballots our counted. Fractional attempts to rectify this by transferring all of the votes for a winning candidate but only at a fraction such that the total votes transferred equals the surplus. So in this example all 40 people's second choice gets counted but only at 1/2 weight so only 20 votes are transferred. Probabilisticaly these are identical methods, in the sense that with random transfer you have a 50 percent chance that your vote is counted. Fractional just attempts to eliminate counting order as a factor. 50.130.133.249 (talk) 23:40, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
I see... it is becoming much more clear. I think that I would prefer the method where all votes are transferred at a percentage, rather than just some, as I'm thinking that if it happens again, that only those people's votes would then count for the next person (arghh - not a good way to phrase it, as you can see, I'm not all that articulate) but what I'm trying to say is that I think it's better to consider everyone's votes, even at a reduced percentage, than choose some at random. I don't know if that's the way it will be done, but it seems like that would be a good way anyway. Thank you for your patience in making it easier for me to understand. Much appreciated. :-) (my mysterious benefactor of knowledge?) Refugeetalk page 23:56, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
[EC] It is a bit confusing, but I think I basically understand it, so I'll give you my take and someone will probably coming along in a bit and let me know I'm full of shit and explain how it really works. But here goes: based on how many candidates there are, there is a certain number of votes each candidates needs in order to be elected. Let's just say in this case it's 10. Once a candidate gets 10 votes all the other votes get transferred to other candidates. However, since chronology is not a factor, it's not like the 11th person to vote for the guy has his vote go to his second choice. Instead the 11th and all previous and subsequent votes are broken up into fractions, with a fraction of the vote going to all their second choices. This holds true for further trickle down votes as well. The Wikipedia article makes it seem pretty straightforward, but their sample scenario is pretty simple, and only has 3 seats to fill, rather than 9, as we have. It gets complicated fast. DickTurpis (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
Ok, more information is good. Thanks. Sadly, I have read the Wikipedia article more than once, but just wasn't understanding it. (I think I single-handedly caused my Accounting Professor to resign from my college - sometimes I just don't get the things that others do) I appreciate the help. :-) Refugeetalk page 23:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
An afternote - wow, I don't even want to think about all the math that must go into planning a voting system like that. Refugeetalk page 00:02, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
After the votes are counted, we're supposed to have a rundown on how the voting worked so everyone can basically understand it, or at least try to. I believe it never happened last time, so I tried going over it longhand on a spreadsheet. It was a huge headache, but after a while I think I basically confirmed that the 7 mods were indeed the winners, though I think I gave up before confirming the alternates. I'm sure the program that does all it for you is more reliable than me anyway, but it's nice to see how it all worked out, and which people got the most votes. I think I was the 7th out of 7. I'm guessing that makes me pretty vulnerable this time. If this were a House race I'd see a hell of a lot of opposition party money flooding into my opponent's coffers. Fortunately it doesn't work that way here. DickTurpis (talk) 00:39, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Note: I split the conversation into two parts: Explanation of voting method and Discussion on the merits of voting system - hope everyone is ok with this. Refugeetalk page 01:32, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
NO! You die now!!!!!!!!!! DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
LOL. :p Are you any relation to Aziraphale? Refugeetalk page 18:29, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion on merits of voting method

So straight up question, why is this more effective than simply each person voting for the number of mods available?Green mowse.pngGodotVAGINA, Vagina, vagina vaginaVAGINA 00:41, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I have no fucking clue how this works, and the more I hear on this page, the more confused I get. --Kels (talk) 00:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
IIRC there was squabbling over microvotes once. Тytalk 00:57, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(EC)It took me a while to understand STV, but it honestly is the fairest electoral system we've got. @WaitingforGodot, are you referring to the method we used for the Loya Jirga elections? The drawback to that was that it was public; several people have expressed concerns that public voting is inherently unfair. (Edit: It also utterly destroyed Recent Changes.) Picon small.pngAcer Blue 00:58, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
As far as why this vote system that gets into voter theory. Suffice it to say, and I can link you the journals/papers that I have explored, that STV is one of the best methods for making the winners actually reflect voter preference. There are some that might be a little bit better but 1) they are actually way more complicated (believe it or not STV is one of the simpler methods), and 2) we have an automated way to count the votes and I as de facto election judge for the foreseeable future like automation. Many alternatives that people think would be "better" are actually fundamentally flawed in that winners are often not a true reflection or preference. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Plus, a computer does it. Makes it way easier to understand if we don't have to do it ourselves. Other ways my meager brain can conceive of seem like they'd take longer.
  1. We could order candidates by whoever has the most votes and take the top seven, but that would result in a very polarized quorum (that's what I'm calling the seven moderators from now on
  2. Candidates could run for specific numbered moderator positions, but nominations for that would be a nightmare, and a lot of votes would be cast away as the minority.
  3. Candidates could form coalitions of seven (or more) to be elected as a whole, but this would limit voter choice
  4. Voting in public means there'll be more HCM, as people object to and question each others' votes.
  5. Holding a new election for each moderator, subtracting the previous victors votes from the total would take fucking forever
  6. I actually had fun thinking of these. I need to go play with my cat or something
--"Shut up, Brx." 01:17, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Well, the only other realistic option is to give each voter maximum seven votes with the stipulation that they have to vote for different people with each vote, as we did for the Loya Jirga. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 01:19, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
An administrative pain in the ass, if you ask me (you didn't, but I enjoy giving the "benefit" of my opinion regardless)--"Shut up, Brx." 01:20, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
I personally prefer that method, but probably because when I looked into it it seemed to be the method which I'd do best in. Actually, I sort of like the idea of beng able to cast negative votes; that might disfavor some polarizing figures, who, in my humble opinion, might not always be best for moderating certain disputes. DickTurpis (talk) 01:30, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Negative votes?! *eyes pop out* Throw that in the mix and see what happens, lol. Like when pirates used to give out a black spot to the group member they wanted to kill? lol. Refugeetalk page 01:36, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
Actually, I'm thinking more along the lines of Wikipedia Admin voting, where you can support or oppose. It's a very different creature. No secret ballots, people can express their rationale - it probably wouldn't work so well here, but the openness has its advantages, I'll admit. DickTurpis (talk) 01:42, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
You could make special WIGO votes that only approved users can use. But the idea of voting people down seems kinda mean.--"Shut up, Brx." 01:47, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
(ec) The difference being that WP has an unlimited number of admins, while RW has a fixed number of mods. If RW had an unlimited number of mods, then all the in-crowd would be made mods, and it would be back to the old Bureaucrat system. Zack Martin HolyMaratreanSigil.png 01:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I encourage people to head over to scholar google or other indexes and poke around a bit, there are a lot of fairly accessible journals dedicated to analysis of voting systems. Here is one that I think has one of the better overviews. I am open to alternative suggestions but keep in mind this decision wasn't arbitrary either. There are reasons both theoretical and practical that make STV a good choice. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

I'd be happy to look over the scholarly journals, but I'm pretty sure none of them look at the issue from that "what favors Dick Turpis" angle, the most important angle of them all. DickTurpis (talk) 02:03, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

[edit] How's it being done?

There was a lot of talk about changing the system after the debacle last time, but as usual, talk doesn't seem to have yielded results. Are we doing things exactly the same, or are we at least using the voting registration system just put in place for board elections? There were a significant number of people who weren't thrilled about STV, and favored a more straightforward approach, but I guess that's not happening this time. DickTurpis (talk) 18:07, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

It feels a lot like we're doing it just because we've said we'll do it every six months & doing it same way as always because nothing alternative has been agreed. As such, I really can't get enthusiastic about the election this time around. I'd be happy to discuss alternative options, & have some ideas, but it's been a washout whenever we've started these discussions before. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I seem to recall the elections for mods were supposed to be the same system as the board (whatever that may be). If we've adopted a new system for the board it seems to me it would apply to the mods as well, right? So does that mean we're only taking registered voters? DickTurpis (talk) 18:24, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd personally like to submit a set number of votes (6 or whatever) that all have equal weight. I don't feel so strongly that I want someone much more than another. (i.e. weighted votes) If I think someone would be good as a moderator, I vote for them, if not, I don't. Whoever gets the most votes should win. Refugeetalk page 18:40, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd like to submit an unlimited number of votes that all have equal weight. We'd then calculate the average number of mods people voted for, & appoint that number of mods from those receiving most votes, rounding up or down as appropriate to resolve any ties. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 18:47, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
It's probably too late to change the voting procedure for this election, though I wouldn't mind revisiting the possibility when it's over. I would like to know if the recently instituted registration policy applies to this election as well as the board. I guess Trent is about the only one who can answer this? DickTurpis (talk) 19:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
As it stands, the new registration policy only applies to the Board of Trustees elections. There has been no talk one way or the other of implementing it for Moderator elections. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:14, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, according to the Moderators page, it says elections will be conducted "using the extension and franchise rules that were used for elections to the Board of Trustees." Does that mean that the process changes with the former as it does with the latter? It says "...rules that were used...", not "are" used, so I guess it could go either way. If we have voter registration enacted it makes sense to use it for the election we know was compromised last time. DickTurpis (talk) 19:19, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
I agree, I'm just stating as a matter of fact that there have been no discussions or decisions, at least from the Board of Trustees, about whether or not the new rules also apply to moderator elections. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 19:23, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
This is a complete fucking sham. Absolutely nothing has been done about the fact Nx et al gamed the system last time. These elections have no validity and as such whomever is elected have no authority. Acei9 19:32, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
Actually, registration addresses that very problem. That's why it would make sense to use it. DickTurpis (talk) 19:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

The board does not have a mandate as a body to make any decisions about how the mod elections are run so that decision won't be coming from the board. The very mandate of the Mods gives them the authority to instigate policy discussions/votes related to mod elections, you guys can change the frequency of elections, the number of mods, the voting system, whatever. Tmtoulouse (talk) 19:41, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, after this election I am finally proposing the vote I outlined last time. The perfect has become the enemy of the good in this case, and too much dilly-dallying about getting the exact right options has meant nothing will be done. I blame myself for not just stepping up and doing it a month ago - now we have to wait until after the election. But right after it, I'm starting the vote on voting methods and franchise.--ADtalkModerator 04:40, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
There seems to be no reason why we can't use registered voters this time. Apparently it's up to the mods. I mean, mod elections are supposed to be basically the same as board elections, so we already have a precedent. DickTurpis (talk) 05:49, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] I know self-nomination isn't allowed....

....and I also know that my past on RationalWiki has been, to say the least, a bit sour. I freely admit that I have been, in the past, a complete and utter n00b, more than once, on various things, including copyrights, edit wars, mission/delete conflicts, et cetera. I am almost certain that nobody will nominate me and I will not become a moderator. This is not just a suck-up attempt to get votes, and I do not want anyone to think that. As some of you could testify, my more recent behaviour has been much better than my earlier behaviour. I would like to say that I am currently viewing my previous actions on here as learning experiences on what not to do; sometimes, these lessons just take some time to sink in. I would simply like to gently put my hat just outside the ring, waiting for anyone to, completely voluntarily, tap it in. Planaria Icon.png Flatworms are fun! Talk to me 04:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-nominations aren't allowed? Are you sure. I'm pretty sure they are.--ADtalkModerator 04:38, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
when did self-nominations stop ? I think you can. Hamster (talk) 04:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
Exactly. That's why Blue nominated all her socks!  :-) Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:01, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Election ennui

We're nearly a week into the nominations period (with no new nominations in the past three days) and have as many declined as accepted nominations, a total of six confirmed candidates for the nine available positions, and a complete absence of the usual campaigning.

Is it time we face up to the fact that there has been a fairly widespread loss of confidence and/or enthusiasm in the current moderator system, and discuss alternative options rather than go through the motions of an election which probably isn't much wanted or needed? ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:48, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Maybe people were disillusioned after the protracted battle over sock voting that followed the last election, but I don't think that's the reason we have so few nominees. The first few elections saw a huge campaign and lots of candidates because people didn't really know what the job entailed, and many moderators not really doing anything at all during their term didn't help. Now that there is more familiarity with the job - how most of the time our actions are met with varying amounts of whining, condemnation and stubborn reversal, and how unpopular it can make you to have to protect people like Maratrean and Brxbrx and Rob and Dirk Steele from administrative abuse, etc. - it's only natural that fewer people want to run.
I do not think that this means we should scrap the system entirely, because there's no evidence that any other system works better, and at least this one has the potential for reform. I'm sure we'll get at least nine by the time nominations close. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 21:01, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
Eh, the offices should be by appointment. No-one who aspires to the office should be trusted with it. 21:17, 20 December 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ
People will sign up sooner to the end date, I'm sure. We're not yet in Citizendium territory, but that doesn't mean we can't have a discussion. But I would wait until after the election to do it, if I were you. Peter Subsisting on honey 22:07, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
That's what's been said the last two-three elections, there's been a certain amount of talking, & it's petered out with nothing happening. Getting nine by the time nominations close isn't much to aspire to; it just means appointing more or less whoever signs up, which isn't ideal for a position that's supposed to have moral authority & community support. It's also unlikely we'll get many new nominees, as most nominations are usually made in the first day or so. We'll probably get some of the current nominees accepting their nomination & not much more than that. The potential for reform is there theoretically, but there have been no tangible changes in the system since it was imposed last summer, & I'm wondering whether it's just better to draw a line under it, declare it's dead, & come up with something new. ΨΣΔξΣΓΩΙÐWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:10, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
It wouldn't be a good idea to get rid of this system before deciding on a new one (that very situation precipitated the imposition of mods from Trent, without much community deliberation about whether it was the best thing to do or whether it was widely wanted). Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 03:17, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Yes. Also, not as visible. Put up an alert, I think.--ADtalkModerator 03:40, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
I'd rather the Board of Trustee voter registration alert stay until the voting starts, because it's actually important. Getting as many people feeling involved in the Foundation itself — for now that means getting them to register and, hopefully, vote for Trustees — is vital. To be frank, the Mod elections take a back seat to that.
That being said, I do think the Mod elections should be permanently rescheduled so they don't awkwardly overlap with the Trustee elections, as they did last year and again this year. Ideally, the Board elections finish up, the voting deadline passes, then the Mod elections start. Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 04:38, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Would it be ok if the mod elections finished before the board elections started? Peter Subsisting on honey 04:57, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
Better idea: Ice the mod elections; have a simple up-and-down majority wins vote to keep the current crop for another X units of Y time period (I say three months) for lack of interest and concentrate on getting momentum behind the important one. Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 05:07, 21 December 2012 (UTC).
The mod elections have fixed, six-month-apart dates for nominations and voting. The Board elections are sort of whenever Trent and/or other Trustees feel like holding them, usually in January, and I'm not sure why they started so early this year. How about this: change the nominating period from two weeks to one week for moderators and start the Board elections January 1st? No overlap and nothing big needs to change for next year in terms of scheduling. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 05:18, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
No fixed dates for Trustee elections? It really is amateur hour at the Foundation Board, isn't it? Star of David.png Radioactive Misanthrope 05:36, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── "The Board of Trustees shall determine the dates, rules and regulation of the voting procedures, which, beginning in 2011, shall take place yearly." That's the best I can find. You would think it would be the other way around, though, that the internal popularity vote of a website could be more easily rescheduled than that of the Board that runs the place.

As for the intercom, can't intercoms with multiple messages be put up? i.e. "Don't forget to register to vote in the board election. Also, nominations are open for the board and moderator elections." Would save a lot of trouble here. Peter Subsisting on honey 07:00, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

A big weakness of the intercom extension is that messages can't be edited once sent. Picon small.pngAcer Blue 07:13, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
But you can at least send a new one, yes? Peter Subsisting on honey 07:16, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
That you can, and I have. Picon small.pngLiquid Blue 07:27, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Can I be a moderator please?

Would be funny to give sysop rights to an IP, no? ; ) —84.198.53.190 (talk) 01:46, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

Self-nomination is permitted (see above). If you're asking for somebody else to nominate you, I doubt they will. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 01:48, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
I wouldn't win a lot of people's trust if I didn't post a humorous request on the talkpage first, though. ; ) —84.198.53.190 (talk) 02:01, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

[edit] Campaigning

No campaigning this year? Do we want Romney to win? sterilesporadic heavy hitter 05:10, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Seems so. Peter Subsisting on honey 05:22, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
Personal tools
Namespaces

Variants
Actions
Navigation
Community
Tools
support