RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Results/Archive1

Moderator
I am very surprised to be honest. As a moderator I'll tone down the invective towards others (oh yeah, and I'll stop blanking Nx's page...heh. Cheers. Ace of Spades 23:14, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I too am surprised, and i'm grateful for the community's trust and support. And like my sheep-fucking drunken Kiwi friend respected colleague above me, I will try tp be a little less uncivil, especially with the annoying n00bs like UHM, Ty and Brxbrx valued newer members of our site. Thanks folks. P-Foster (talk) 23:34, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Congrats Ace! and P-Foster. You'll be great as Mods I have no doubt. :-) Congrats to all - thanks for helping out here. Refugee talk page 17:01, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * ah, fuck. just the old guard over again.  And P-foster, what do you have against Ty?--  23:38, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * What's wrong with the old guard? The selected mods are really quite level headed with P-Foster and myself thrown in seemingly for a joke. Ace of Spades 23:39, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * What's wrong is that if Nutty Roux, now a moderator, decides to insult Ty on his user page again, Weaseloid and you and the others won't do anything about it because you've either adopted a laissez-faire attitude out of philosophy or you just like being able to bully and flame people at will. At least human didn't make it, but he'll still be allowed to do whatever he wants under this regime.  Basically, everything's pretty much the same as it was before.--  23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was you noobs who pushed this thing. This is what you got.  Now SHUT THE FUCK UP and quit your whining, you useless piece of shit.  Why not go back to ED?  Oh yeah, your wiki died because you ruined it.   11:05, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You really think that's a big deal, don't you? You sure jumped in early to call me a dick and then stuck around to stir shit. I view the shit storm that developed on my talk page as a lot more disruptive than an edit to Ty's userpage that was reverted immediately and me expressing a opinion about his behavior on my userpage that's been echoed by others. Ty is a big boy. He acted like a little bitch by running away but he came back nearly immediately. As far as I was concerned that should have been the end of it. Oddly, as that shit storm degraded (you were right there participating), I asked a crat to intervene to cool it down. Nobody bit. Instead people flamed me even more. As a party to that conversation it would have been inappropriate for me to then intervene as a moderator, but you don't know a fucking thing about how "Weaseloid and you and the others won't do anything about it" would have handled the situation because this is the first time anyone's had the moral authority to intervene in the first place. The rest of your rant is sour grapes. I know how desperately you wanted your little revolution with non-"veteran" and non-"oldfag" moderators. Sorry that didn't happen for you, but why won't you just sit tight and see what happens before you heap more shit on the situation? [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You did get your crat intervention. You didn't like it. I still don't understand why you think you should be immune from the consequences (people chastising you on your talk page) of your actions (vandalising Ty's userpage). EddyP Great King! Disaster! 16:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Crats no longer exist. So they are irrelevant to this conversation. 12:00, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I didn't get an intervention. I got Bob saying crats don't intervene and Armondikov attacking me. I don't think I should be immune from the consequences of vandalizing Ty's userpage. I also don't think that anything that happened on my talkpage was the least bit productive - if the consequences of my actions are people pouring out of the woodwork to call me names and heap shit, that's unproductive bullshit. My request for intervention was aimed at stopping the situation from continuing to spiral out of control with people doing shit like continuing to call me names, slapping up a pointless and inflammatory template, and then edit warring me over it. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is Ty really still a n00b? Isn't the guy here for like 2 years now? Oh P (because I'm to lazy to write your full name from now on), you can write my user name small now - although it might get confusing from time to time. --uhm, t! 23:55, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Too lazy to write "P-Foster" but capable of writing "(because I'm to lazy to write your full name from now on)"? ADK ...I'll lather your osteoporosis! 23:57, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats, you just got the joke. --uhm, t! 00:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ Brxbrx. How about we all show a little good faith and allow the system to work for a while? If Nutty or anybody else acts like a dick, we can deal with it without reverting to an old boy's club. Trus us. P-Foster (talk) 00:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fine. But what do you have against Ty?--  00:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nothing. I love Ty for many reasons. For one thing, he has a sense of humor and can recognize when someone is taking the piss. P-Foster (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * P-Foster is awesome. Тy  [[User talk:Ty| communications wire

]] 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm with P here, let's have some faith. P and Ace have allready said that they'll be - well - "more civil" now. --uhm, t! 00:09, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with Ace, AD, Pi, and Weaseloid, but Nutty Roux has no business being a mod in my opinion. People are always bitching about Human but I find that Nutty can be way more abusive than Human. I haven't had too many problems with P-Foster other than when he's defended Nutty, and I'm not familiar enough with Genghis Khant to offer my opinion. I would have honestly rather seen MC, RobSmith, or Dmorris as a mod than Nutty, and that is a low blow. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 04:30, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alyssa, democracy is like that. I have to say that I myself would not [have] trust[ed] Nutty in a "moderating" role, but obviously plenty of others would.  Hopefully the Mod Squad will police its own members.  I am more concerned over the fact that the role is still so vague. Tricksy (talk) 04:54, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Alyssa, I don't know you from Adam and I don't recall ever interacting with you except as your previous cheerleader incarnation to express something like my opinion that you're tedious and boring. I don't know about the rest of my "abuse." I've expressed some strong opinions about Brxbrx because my first interaction with him was him showing up on my talk page to stir shit and because I view some of his behavior as unproductive attention whoring. I've also expressed extremely strong opinions about one of our resident cranks. You can call that "abuse" if you want. I'm not worried about the former cheerleader troll coming out of the woodwork to slam me when we've had so few personal interactions and I've so infrequently expressed my distaste for a small number of editors that it's not fair to describe me as having a record of abuse. Bradley, I'm also concerned that the role of the moderator is vague-ish. I suspect your objection to me in a moderator role is due to how strongly critical I've been of you and Philip and that most of it's a "worldview" issue. I've explained my motivation as to you personally as well as apologized for the overbreadth of my ire. Check the Talk:aSK page. I obviously wouldn't have accepted the moderator nomination if I didn't think I could be fair. There might very well be situations in which I'd consider recusing myself if for no other reason than to avoid the appearance of improriety. Would that address your concerns or are you really saying you think I have bad judgment? [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:21, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Nutty, I have moderated my previous post a little. My "objection" (although I think "reservation" would be closer to the mark) was not based on anything you have said, but on "use of tools" actions here on RW that I personally consider abuses of those tools.  BUT, a) there are no actual rules here (or there weren't) so "abuse" can only ever by my opinion in this setting and 2) plenty of others know you better than I do.  I will address the TWIGO comments there (soon-ish).Tricksy (talk) 23:56, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with ya Tricksy, democracy is a wonderful thing but sometimes it gives us results we disagree with. We might not have liked it when Bush was elected or when Obama was elected, but we accept the fact that democracy put them there. Hopefully Nutty won't be too heavy handed or assume bad faith all the time, I can tell you I wouldn't have. I didn't really expect to win anyway though. Alyssa Bryant (talk) 05:02, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * While I know Nutty has been abrasive in the past I also know him on a personal level. He may ruffle a few feathers but he would work within his mandate and is willing to work with others. Ace of Spades 05:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Congrats to Ace & P-Foster, I was hoping you'd lose; Nutty, I can live with it; Genghs, Pi, Weaseloid & AD, Good luck. And I'd like to thank all the little people who helped with my campaign. nobsViva la Revolución! 01:33, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

I was incredibly surprised to see Ace and Slutty make this A-list, but I couldn't wish this burden on any two of my best friends. Good luck mates and peace out. And all the best the other 5ive. I voted for you all. Actually amusingly, the 7even winners, were, I think, my 7even first votes. 11:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Human: not the King, but the King-maker. DickTurpis (talk) 18:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ace made the cut cause he was top of the list; next time I'll change my user name to AAAnobs, like in the Yellow Pages. nobsViva la Revolución! 19:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Details?
Not to seem churlish, but where are the actual details of the results (he says churlishly)? How can one be expected to endlessly analyse a simple list of seven names? I am a little less than half joking. Tricksy (talk) 23:47, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Is that like 0.49-joking or 0.48-joking? --uhm, t! 23:56, 4 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Analyze to your hearts content, you have all the info I had. Tmtoulouse (talk) 00:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * My god, that's discouraging.-- 00:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well. That's quite, erm, reliable  open  accountable authoritarian. Tricksy (talk) 01:17, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would you like to know exactly who voted for whom, maybe? P-FosterCan we talk about this, baby? 01:19, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I knew someone would sling that out at some point. No, but it should be possible to show what votes each candidate received. Why bother with the sham of a democratic process if the process is immune to scrutiny?  Really, Tmtoulouse could have simply picked 7 candidates at random (or even based on receipt of some incentive) and declared them the winners and it would look exactly like this.  I am not saying that this happened, just that there is no way to tell that it didn't. Tricksy (talk) 01:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Either you didn't notice that Tmtoulouse put up the votes, you don't understand that votes per candidate can be calculated from what he put up, or you're accusing him of falsifying the entire vote record. I hope it's the first.  ThunderkatzHo! 01:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * All results are here, Tricksy.-- 01:39, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I only had this page open, and didn't notice that the "fine print" had been posted in response. Thank you. Tricksy (talk) 01:44, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Damn, more people voted for me than I thought. Тy  [[User talk:Ty| communications wire

]] 03:06, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Would it be possible to simply have a list of candidates ordered by who got the most votes, or am I just being too lazy?-- 07:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

A thought
One thing you guys might want to collectively do is stick an unobtrusive but clear icon in your signatures. Mod duties mean precisely feck all if no one knows who you are. Sure, you can say "it's written on this page", but can you guarantee that A) everyone will read it, and I mean specifically any user that signs up after this and B) everyone will remember it. If you want to be respectable enough to deal with dispute resolution it needs to be clear who has that responsibility to the point where it's second nature who to turn to. ADK ...I'll refill your earlobe! 00:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds good to me. You wanna draw something up? P-Foster (talk) 00:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We'd only end up having to put it to a vote :p. You could use the jellybrain for now. ADK ...I'll vote your communist! 00:14, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think "Senior Admin" ought to be enough. 11:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Test. -  π     01:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable. Complied.  Although some might find it intimidating, so we'll have to see.-- 01:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Okay, that looks more disgusting than I thought it would be initially.... ADK ...I'll exterminate your dyslexia! 01:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a different version of it, or a smaller one? I have the design sense of a blind monkey.-- 01:16, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe something a little less like thumbprints all over the page. Tricksy (talk) 05:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah man, that's fucking hideous. Ace of Spades 05:11, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, two people here agreed with two of my posts in a row! I think I need a little lie down.  ;) Tricksy (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Maybe a black-and-white version would be better?-- 05:28, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The color is the big problem, I think. I keep seeing flecks of poo all over my screen. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 05:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The new, light gray version looks a lot better! The dark brain was intimidating, lol. Refugee talk page 17:03, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I don't think there's a need to point out someone is a moderator with their every comment, only when they're acting in their role as a moderator. Otherwise it might seem like their comment in a debate or whatever has more weight or something. -- Nx  / talk 07:00, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He's right, you know. Also, how are noobs to know that that grey glob means "mod"?  Nx, can we figure out a special way for mods to sign (6 tildes?) when they are acting as mods and not just as typical drunk editors?  11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'd just put an item in the Navbar that lists the mods and describes their role. How about posting in a different color when acting in their capacity as moderators? Röstigraben (talk) 07:04, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The point is to make it second nature who they are. Look at any forum and you'll find the mods are highlighted in some way. Either their avatar is marked or their name is a different colour - and you get plenty of different classes in different colours. While I wouldn't want to see people treading on eggshells whenever they see a Mod icon, there's no use in them if they're consistently cloaked and out of view and then suddenly "A HA! It is I, your moderator!" out of nowhere. A Mod position works when you're active and open and you gain respectability. There shouldn't be "now I'm not acting as a mod/now I am acting as a mod". ADK ...I'll cure your rickroll! 08:26, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but this idea reminds me too much of TK's "senior admin" bit in his sig. -- Nx  / talk 08:33, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I hear you, Nx. That used to annoy the heck out of me too. Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 17:08, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I propose that, when speaking as moderators, mods should use Comic Sans MS. EddyP Great King! Disaster! 08:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It worked great on a forum I used to be active in - they had a moderator who was incidentally the most active member of the community and had established strong personal relationships with many other users. Switching to a different color was just signalling, "OK guys, I need to get serious for a moment...". I assume that when the moderators aren't "on duty" and have to intervene in some dispute, they'll want to treat with others like regular users, and prominently displaying the status all the time would distract from that. In a small community like RW, pretty much everyone will already know who the mods are anyway. Those who don't, like newcomers, can just look them up when there's a prominently placed link, like in the "Community" section. Röstigraben (talk) 09:23, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think they should ever be "off duty". Otherwise the switch becomes arbitrary and it would fail exactly like the LJ did because people would umm and ahh and deliberate for far too long over whether to actually don the cape, mask and utility belt. RW is not as small as you think when it comes to everyone knowing who the mods are. I couldn't name all 7 right now off the top of my head right now, I'm not going to sit on the list an memorise it and I doubt anyone else would either, so there's no sense in just "looking it up". Otherwise you'll just get the ridiculous situation where they have to prefix the SERIOUS BUSINESS with "this is a mod speaking". Fair enough if you don't want to be reminded of TK's "senior admin" badge, although do we have to have this shadow of fucking Conservapedia over us? The failing of general anarchy was that there was no one in charge, so it took days to do what should have taken minutes and then only a single post to completely undo that. The failing of the LJ was that it took days to figure out whether they should be convened - and then only a few posts to undo that because they were suddenly disbanded again. So it really has to be a full time job or you may as well not bother. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll sanctify your autobiography!  09:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * By "not on duty", I mean "not currently engaged in resolving a dispute", and we don't have 24/7 HCMs. They can quickly spring into action by either responding to a specific call for arbitration, or when they see for themselves that a dispute is getting out of hand. By putting a link in the sidebar, their names are always just a click away. If it's technically possible, you could also add a button to it that lets a user specify the section where a fight has broken out, then sends an intercom message to all mods. You'd immediately notice them when they're needed, but let them mingle normally with the rest of the community whenever they just hang out. Anyway, that's assuming what they want - the decision on how to announce their presence is theirs. Röstigraben (talk) 10:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed, and Armondikov, did you ever notice how useless you are sometimes? 11:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

[Title redacted]
[Post redacted] 00:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * -- 00:32, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmmm. In hindsight, that's far more melodramatic than I wanted to be, and I withdraw my comment. Please forgive me, I haven't slept for about three days. My point is really just that most of the new Moderators seem to be people who didn't think we needed Moderators, and on that basis I am skeptical of this system's long-term prospects. 02:48, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Pink, this will only work if we -- and I'm speaking as a RatWik lifer here, not a as a mod -- let it work. Smart, level-headed and invested users are the key to this whole thing. Stick it out, and give us a chance. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 02:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In all fairness, that is what seems to happen. I feel this is because, for whatever reason, the community has decided that they so hate entrenched rules, that they would rather hand over any amount of power to people who will, essentially, make up rules as they go along.  Of course, if RW had strong, clearly visible, and rigorously enforced rules, none of this would have ever happened.  Now regrettably, everybody here seems to prefer anarchy to, well, civilization, so they'd do absolutely anything to avoid actually creating rules- like have some sort of "election" charade.  Why can we not just man/woman up, write some community RULES, give everyone (read: sysops) the ability to enforce them (and have serious penalties awaiting those who abused their enforcement), and then abolish any delusions of a legislature or moderator group.  Sheesh.  -- 05:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'll reserve full judgement until they actually do something, but Ace McWicked and Nutty Roux? Yeah, that's not exactly encouraging. -- Nx  / talk 07:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You'll just have to wait and see I guess. And while the LJ never did anything I sertainly didn't use my position on it as any sort of currency. Ace of Spades 07:10, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think we need RULEZ. If you have rules and you give everyone the ability to enforce them you end up with endless bickering about how to interpret rules. How do you avoid that? By making the rules as specific as possible and as comprehensive as possible - which just leads to too many rules. And what's this!? A situation not covered by the rules! No-fucking-noes, more bickering. Have you ever tried to write your own rulebook for a table-top RPG that's as comprehensive as GURPS, Dungeons and Dragons or Warhammer? It's not an easy task and still you will get bickering and "what the hell do we do in this situiaton?!?". The Community Standards is a long and bloated document that's been expanded and fought over so many times you'd suspect we were trying to found our own country. Let's face it; if someone is signing up and thinking about making just a few casual edits, are they going to sit down, read and indeed memorize that document? No. It worked fine when the site was half a dozen people, everyone knew everyone else and practically slept with each other via IRC. Now when the active users are hitting three figures and we have enough regular users for 20 of them to be both nominated and accepted for a mod position it needs to change. As Trent said a long, long time ago, we're passed the stage where cultural and memetic memory will do in place of rules and people to make decisions. Rules are nothing more than words on paper, or in our case 1s and 0s on a remote hard-drive somewhere, if you don't have actual meatpuppets to give them meaning. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll speak your milk! 08:18, 5 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Wow, Armondick, I read every word you wrote and you said nothing. So we've passed Dunbar's number, awesome.  And you're a lazy dick, given. But you said nothing of any use.  11:26, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

What comes next?
Perhaps a page where mods can be contacted, that includes a clear description of their role and their responsibilities, with lots of links all around the wiki to make it easy to find? P-Foster (talk) 00:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * We rename the Chicken Coop the Moderator's Beat Down Room. -  <font face=times color=black>π    00:38, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How about the moderators go right to the Chicken Coop and see if they can get the Wiki to agree on how to deal with MarcusCicero? 00:45, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? I am waiting to see what he has planned for the 8th, should be something big. -  <font face=times color=black>π    00:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * EC Yes, but: lets give everyone a day or two to get informed and accept their election. I will also suggest that in order to do such a thing -- IF enough people want to do such a thing -- that it happen on a page that is protected at a mod-only level so that the mods can keep their debate focused, while the community at large can contribute/react/engage on the relevant talk page; it might help keep HCM from developing/spiraling. P-Foster (talk) 00:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd be fine with that. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll earn your domino! 00:51, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Mod forums? -  <font face=times color=black>π    00:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Whatever 1. is visible to everyone; 2. shows up on Recent Changes so everybody can track it; 3. has a talk page so people can raise questions, etc. P-Foster (talk) 00:55, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Forums work I guess, but as you said give it a day or two. -  <font face=times color=black>π    00:57, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Good suggestions.-- 01:15, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

The only reason the moderators would even need a forum is if they were lazy and did not spot a bout of HCM on the rise. 01:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * How else would the mods discuss a situation without a forum or some other dedicated page? P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 01:25, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to the proposal for a "moderator contact" page, which seemed to be setting the moderators in a judge's role as opposed to a referee's. 01:35, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I think the problem is we never decided what mods are and do. Are they judges or refs or something else entirely?  Do they make decisions themselves, or do they simply carry out the will of the mob while ensuring discussion doesn't get too heated?    What cases can they take?  What cases should they take?  What cases must they take?  Are they allowed to insert themselves into any conflict?  Are they required to insert themselves into any conflict?  None of this has been finalized at any point.  ThunderkatzHo! 01:41, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * EC Lx, the police can intervene when they see something happening that requires their attention. People may also call the police if they feel that a situation requires their attention. While I do not mean to imply that mods = the police, there's nothing wrong with having a place where one can get in touch if required. P-FosterCan't we talk about this, baby? 01:46, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The way Trent laid it out, the moderators are referees, not judges, and they insert themselves into conflicts at their own discretion. 03:36, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I made a start on the above contact page. -- 02:07, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Conflict of interest rule
I assume we will have a rule that: Sounds fair and reasonable? 07:52, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * 1) Moderators are not to moderate debates/disputes/whatever in which they've been active participants
 * 2) Where a moderator and another user could reasonably be perceived to have a "history" (positive or negative), the moderator shall not use their moderator powers with respect to any dispute where that other editor has been a major participant
 * I think that goes without saying. But could you re-write no.2 in a way that doesn't remind me of a 1st year law student? <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll neuter your penguin! 08:20, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @ADK: You can test this by seeing if the moderator has both the mens rea and actus reus for conflict resolution. <font color="#777777">Crundy <font color="#00F0A20">Talk nerdy to me 10:29, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Generally that makes a lot of sense, but some people here have some history with every-freakin'-body. I'd say for actual conflicts (like Human/Nx) yes, for small time mutual dislikes that shouldn't make any difference. --uhm, t! 10:34, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * But neither Nx or I are on the list, so that's not an issue. We can continue to insult each other free of moddish responsibility. Although that bitch does have tech rights and I am but a plebian sysop. Oh well.  11:32, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * "like" --uhm, t! 23:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a good idea. My initial impression of Maratrean's recommended language is No. 1 is pretty close to acceptable. No. 2 is grossly overbroad. No rules that apply to judges require recusal simply because the judge has a "history" with a user. Witness, party, incapable of overcoming an emotional response to a party, but definitely not merely "history." While I don't agree that the moderator position is very similar to that of a judge because (a) the nature of a panel normalizes the potential effect of one referee having a subconscious bias unlike a trial level judge, who is at least the find of law if not the finder of fact, and (b) nearly every one of us has said we'll treat the moderator role as a public trust with the input of the community (American judges can't do that) -- at the very least, someone's going to point out a potential conflict even if the referee doesn't recognize it. I'm going to make some suggestions about (a) avoiding bias, prejudice, and harassment, (b) disqualification/recusal, and (c) avoiding the appearance of impropriety by taking some cues from Rules 1.2, 2.3, 2.4, and 2.11 of the American Bar Association Model Code of Judicial Conduct. I don't approve of an overly strict set of rules governing the moderator position, but since I think everyone agrees we ought to be immediately accountable to the community we all need some guidance on these important topics. If anyone's got other ideas for decent formulations of relevant guiding principles let's talk about it. [[file:Nuttysexpistols.png|60px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]][[file:Nuttytalk.png|35px|link=User_talk:Nutty_Roux|never mind]] 16:42, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Raisins. Raisins and oats. 11:35, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Some numbers
If anyone cares (perhaps unlikely) I ran some numbers on the results, out of basic curiosity. We know the winners, but here's some other shit which may or may not be telling, or interesting:


 * Most total votes by candidate

This is the number of votes each person got, unweighted. Since people voted for anywhere from 1 to 20 candidates, this doesn't mean much by itself. I believe 12 people gave all 20 candidates a rank (most did far less though) so everyone automatically got 12 votes. Here are the people who got the most:
 * 1) Pi - 62
 * 2) P-Foster - 54
 * 3) tie: AD, DickTurpis - 53
 * 5) tie: Genghis Khant, Nutty Roux - 50
 * 7) Ace McWicked - 49
 * 8) ListenerX - 48
 * 9) Lily - 45
 * 10) Weaseloid - 44
 * 11) Aboriginal Noise - 42
 * 12) tie: MordantMaenad, Psygremlin - 41
 * 14) Human - 39
 * 15) Ty - 36
 * 16) Eira - 35
 * 17) Javascap - 34
 * 18) Bryant - 21
 * 19) RobSmith - 20
 * 20) Lumenos - 19


 * Most #1 ranked votes

Pretty self-explanatory, I think.
 * 1) Nutty Roux - 9
 * 2) tie: Pi, P-Foster - 8
 * 4) Weaseloid - 7
 * 5) tie: Ace McWicked, AD, Genghis Khant - 6
 * 8) tie: DickTurpis, MordantMaenad, Psygremlin - 5
 * 11) Aboriginal Noise - 4
 * 12) tie: Human, ListenerX, RobSmith, Ty - 3
 * 16) tie: Eira, Lily - 2
 * 18) Javascap - 1
 * 19) tie: Bryant, Lumenos - 0


 * Most top 7 votes

I included this because there were 7 positions, and I think 7 was the most common number of votes people cast. Again, these are unweighted, with any rank of 7 or better being one vote, anything less being none.


 * 1) Pi - 49
 * 2) P-Foster - 43
 * 3) DickTurpis - 39
 * 4) Genghis Khant - 38
 * 5) AD - 37
 * 6) Nutty Roux - 36
 * 7) Ace McWicked - 35
 * 8) ListenerX - 34
 * 9) Weaseloid - 30
 * 10) Psygremlin - 28
 * 11) Lily - 27
 * 12) Human - 25
 * 13) Aboriginal Noise - 24
 * 14) MordantMaenad - 22
 * 15) Eira - 17
 * 16) Javascap - 14
 * 17) Ty - 13
 * 18) RobSmith - 5
 * 19) tie: Bryant, Lumenos - 4

I'm pretty sure these are accurate, though it's entirely possible, or likely, that there are a few minor errors. Not entirely sure why I did this, but I guess there's no reason to give Larron a monopoly on data analysis or whatever. DickTurpis (talk) 23:49, 5 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't understand a damn thing you wrote, but I am really glad you wrote it, since the smart people here can figure it out. Thanks!  10:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Although I got elected I'm not too sure about the validity of the STV method used. It strikes me that as there were seven vacancies then there should have been seven votes per elector. 11:18, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No no, it doesn't work that way. Everyone gets one vote and only one vote. But that vote lists various alternatives if the person you first voted for ends up being eliminated. Thus, as you eliminate the candidates with the least number of votes you end up moving down a person's preferences until you end up with the same number of candidates as seats. This also means that if you had voted for Pi as your first candidate in our election, then the rest of your "votes" don't matter. Your vote was for Pi. -- 12:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This really is discouraging. I guess the old ones reign.--  11:19, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Gawd you are an idiot. We held the election you ED refugees wanted and these are the results.  Who did you expect to win, useless people like yourself, or categorizors like your buddy?  Quit your whining, you dumb noob.  11:43, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * The most remarkable thing is that Rob Smith and Lumenos managed to get some top seven votes. We actually have users who would want to see them in positions of authority? Remarkable.--BobSpring is sprung! 12:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, Rob and Lumenos for starters! 12:11, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but Rob got 3 number one votes and 5 top seven votes. Which is surprising to say the least.--BobSpring is sprung! 13:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * True, but I sort of knew that would happen. I'm almost surprised he didn't get more. I'm sure one vote was him, and I'm likewise pretty certain there was some vote-trolling going on by long-standing socks and/or people unhappy with the system who wanted to cast a protest vote. Of course, there could also be people who actually think Rob would make a good moderator. He would certainly add a different perspective. DickTurpis (talk) 14:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * @Brxbrx - those of us who have been around for a few years (a) have got some considerable investment in RatWiki, what it is and what it ought to be and (b) have a proven track record. I don't always agree with those who were voted in but I know that we share a concern for the well being of the site. Jack Hughes (talk) 12:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Unless I'm reading it wrong, the list of votes doesn't tally with the list of candidates (well, using mine as an example) - I know who I voted for in first place and that doesn't reflect next to my name - looking at the 4th from bottom candidate versus votes. -- PsyGremlin  12:17, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You are reading it wrong. Nothing reflects next to your name. The 86 lists reflect the 86 voters, I believe in chronological order. To find your vote, look for the number of your first choice in the first spot. It's 17, if you voted for yourself, and there are 5 such votes, so one will be yours. You can figure out which if you remember basically what your other ranked votes were, and how many you voted for (it will probably not be one with an 8 in it). DickTurpis (talk) 13:06, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah ok, thanks. The revolution will be postponed for now then :) -- PsyGremlin  13:42, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

more numbers
I wrote a program to do the vote counting independently. It came up with the same results.

The partial output of the process is listed here: Electing 7 seats Registered 20 candidates Registered 86 votes Eliminating Bryant with 0 votes Eliminating Lumenos with 0 votes Eliminating Javascap with 1 votes Eliminating Eira with 2 votes Eliminating Lily with 2 votes Eliminating Human with 3 votes Eliminating RobSmith with 3 votes Candidate Nutty Roux elected with 11 votes! Candidate Ace McWicked elected with 14 votes! Eliminating ListenerX with 5 votes Eliminating MordantMaenad with 5 votes Eliminating Aboriginal Noise with 5 votes Eliminating Ty with 5 votes Candidate Pi elected with 18 votes! Candidate P-Foster elected with 20 votes! Candidate DickTurpis elected with 16 votes! Eliminating Weaseloid with 15 votes Eliminating Psygremlin with 15 votes 2 seats remaining: Genghis Khant: 30 AD: 34

Enjoy your data! Full debugging output of every step taken to be posted later. --12:44, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Err, your results aren't the same. You've got DickTurpis instead of Weaseloid.  ThunderkatzHo! 12:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeee-ha! I get to demand a recount! It's the 2000 election all over again! Let me rustle up a team of lawyers. DickTurpis (talk) 13:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It's all wrong... bleh! It sounds so simple on the face of it, but actually transferring votes isn't as simply as moving them over... grrr... -- 13:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's exactly why I didn't try to undertake that specific endeavor. My numbers were a hell of a lot easier to come up with. We might need Larron in here after all. DickTurpis (talk) 13:27, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hm... I'm actually having further issues... "surplus votes" are supposed to be transferred to other candidates, but who determines which votes are surplus? In a large selection with few choices, it's easy to do, but bleh... -- 13:03, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * According to the Droop quota, which is used commonly in STV elections, the number of votes required to automatically qualify someone for one of the 7 positions was 10. As no one reached that quota (the highest was 9), the voting was based purely on first place votes.  I think.   13:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So it was just based on 1st place votes then? I brought this up on the election talk page and was assured that wasn't the case, but if you're correct, then 3 moderators were elected with just 6 votes each out of 86. That was the sort of thing, I at least, wanted to avoid. DickTurpis (talk) 13:25, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * $$(\frac{86}{7 + 1} + 1) = 11\frac{1}{4}$$, so the Droop quota is actually 11. -- 13:31, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah. I just misremembered.  I figured it out yesterday to see how poorly I did what place I came in.   13:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

OK! I've got things working right, except for surplus transfer, but only one person exceeded quota (grats P-Foster!), so the calculations are relatively easy, but somewhat manual. The question comes down to what I mentioned before: tie-breaker between MordantMaenad and AD (what? where did I say this? I replaced it before people even spotted that idiocy.) So, I'm looking at proportionality by hand to verify between the two. Otherwise, the results are the same. (Nutty Roux, Pi, P-Foster, Genghis Khant, Ace McWicked, and Weaseloid.) -- 13:50, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok, just looked over the proportional situation. When P-Foster is elected, he has 12 votes, leaving 1/12th of a surplus vote transferred from each.  This has AD receiving 6/12ths of a vote, MordantMaenad receiving 3/12ths, 1/12th being exhausted, and finally Ghengis Khant gets 2/12ths. When GK gets elected, I could do the proportionality on the surplus of 2/12ths of a vote (leaving us at 1/144th votes) but even if the full 2/12ths vote went to MordantMaenad, she wouldn't exceed AD's 6/12th of a vote, and thus calculating the reciprocal of gross votes is unnecessary. -- 13:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Looking at WP's explanation there are several ways of doing that so I guess you really need to ask Trent before people get upset about it and we end up with HCM. 14:04, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I certainly hope it doesn't come to that. That was certainly not my intention in posting anything here. It is good to have the process as open as possible, however. I have to say, though, am I the only one who thinks the concept of 1/12 of a vote is sort of weird? DickTurpis (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * He declared that it was Scottish STV, the rules being here. -- 14:22, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Ok, this time for real, full Scottish STV, proportional votes and everything. (One vote even goes homeopathic! In that it drops below 0.00001 of a vote, and thus nothing of the original vote remains.)

Electing 7 seats Registered 20 candidates Registered 86 votes Quota to be elected is floor ( ( 86 / ( 7 + 1 )) + 1 ) = 11 Selected ( Bryant, Lumenos ) for elimination with 0 votes Selected ( Javascap ) for elimination with 1 votes Selected ( Eira, Lily ) for elimination with 2 votes Selected ( Human, RobSmith ) for elimination with 3 votes Candidate(s) Nutty Roux elected with 11 votes! Selected ( ListenerX, Aboriginal Noise ) for elimination with 4 votes Selected ( Ty ) for elimination with 5 votes Selected ( DickTurpis ) for elimination with 6 votes Candidate(s) P-Foster elected with 12 votes! Candidate(s) Pi elected with 11.08333 votes! Selected ( Psygremlin ) for elimination with 7.00751 votes Candidate(s) Genghis Khant elected with 11.10648 votes! Candidate(s) Ace McWicked elected with 11.05878 votes! 2 seats remaining: Weaseloid: 10.04055 AD: 8.57224 MordantMaenad: 8.27246

I cut off the last round of elimination to show how close the last seat was between AD and MordantMaenad was. Nearly 3/10ths of a vote! Now, I can post the source code, and the full debug output if anyone is interested and wants to follow along. -- 15:48, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Doing it by hand - story of my life - I get the same final result but very slightly different figures: Ace McWicked	6 Aboriginal Noise	4 AD	6 Bryant	0 DickTurpis	5 Eira	2 Genghis Khant	6 Human	3 Javascap	1 Lily	2 ListenerX	3 Lumenos	0 MordantMaenad	5 Nutty Roux	9 Pi	8 P-Foster	8 Psygremlin	5 RobSmith	3 Ty	3 Weaseloid	7

No candidate has 11 votes; eliminating Bryant and Lumenos (0 votes each). Transferring votes from Javascap (1 vote) at full value. Ace McWicked	7	(+1) Aboriginal Noise	4 AD	6 DickTurpis	5 Genghis Khant	6 Human	3 ListenerX	3 MordantMaenad	5 Nutty Roux	9 Pi	8 P-Foster	8 Psygremlin	5 RobSmith	3 Ty	3 Weaseloid	7

No candidate has 11 votes; transferring Eira and Lily (2 votes each) at full value. Ace McWicked	7 Aboriginal Noise	4 AD	6 DickTurpis	5 Genghis Khant	6 ListenerX	4	(+1) MordantMaenad	5 Nutty Roux	10	(+1) Pi	8 P-Foster	8 Psygremlin	6	(+1) Ty	4	(+1) Weaseloid	7

No candidate has 11 votes; transferring Human and RobSmith (2 votes each) at full value. Ace McWicked	8	(+1) Aboriginal Noise	4 AD	6 DickTurpis	5 Genghis Khant	7	(+1) ListenerX	4 MordantMaenad	5 Nutty Roux	11	(+1) Pi	8 P-Foster	8 Psygremlin	6 Ty	5	(+1) Weaseloid	8	(+1)
 * Untransferrable	1

Nutty Roux is Elected; 0 votes above quota so all votes for Nutty Roux are removed. Transferring Aboriginal Noise and ListenerX (4 votes each) at full value. Ace McWicked	8 AD	7 (+1) DickTurpis	6 (+1) Genghis Khant	8 (+1) MordantMaenad	6 (+1) Pi	10 (+2) P-Foster	8 Psygremlin	7 (+1) Ty	5 Weaseloid	9 (+1)

No candidate has 11 votes; transferring Ty (5 votes) at full value. Ace McWicked	8 AD	8 (+1) DickTurpis	6 Genghis Khant	8 MordantMaenad	8 (+2) Pi	10 P-Foster	10 (+2) Psygremlin	7 Weaseloid	9

No candidate has 11 votes; transferring DickTurpis (6 votes) at full value. Ace McWicked	9 (+1) AD	8 Genghis Khant	9 (+1) MordantMaenad	8 Pi	11 (+1) P-Foster	12 (+2) Psygremlin	7 Weaseloid	10 (+1)

Pi is Elected; 0 votes above quota so all votes for Pi are removed. P-Foster is elected with 1 vote surplus; transferring excess at 1/12 vote value Ace McWicked	9 AD	8 1/2	(+6/12) Genghis Khant	9 2/12 (+2/12) MordantMaenad	8 3/12 (+3/12) Psygremlin	7 Weaseloid	10
 * Untransferrable	1/12

No candidate has 11 votes; transferring Psygremlin (7 votes) at full value. Ace McWicked	11 (+2) AD	8 1/2 Genghis Khant	11 2/12 (+2) MordantMaenad	8 3/12 Weaseloid	10
 * Untransferrable	3

Ace McWicked is elected; 0 votes above quota so all votes for Ace McWicked are removed. Genghis Khant is elected; 2/12 votes above quota so all votes are transferred at 2/144 of their current value. AD	gains 5/244 + 1/1464 MordantMaenad	gains 1/1464 Weaseloid	gains 2/144

No candidate has 11 votes; eliminating MordantMaenad as candidate with lowest votes leaves AD and Weaseloid elected. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:12, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Wow, I'm flattered by those who ranked me so high. Congratulations to our elected moderators. I hope the system works out. 22:46, 6 July 2011 (UTC)


 * You elected Pi before you elected P-Foster. Since P-Foster has 12 votes, and Pi has 11 votes at that round, you transfer P-Foster first (the person with the most votes first). This results in a 1/12th vote heading to Pi before he becomes elected, and that 1/12th vote has to then be distributed. Also, "Aboriginal Noise" is alphabetically before "Ace McWicked". :P Oh, and partial votes are only kept to the 5th decimal place, rather than infinitely dilutable. Here is a link to the full dump of process. Checking everything is in agreement until you elect Pi over P-Foster. Checking after that is pointless as mathematically it will be different. -- 22:53, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * They were both elected in the same round so both get eliminated at the same time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:31, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As per the document that I linked to ("This paper is based on a document written by the author to provide a detailed description of the STV count for the Scottish Local Government elections. That document was 'adopted' by the Scottish Executive and posted on the VoteScotland website to supplement the more general public information about the STV voting system."), "All surpluses are transferred, in order of diminishing size, except when all places have been filled. There is no provision for deferring the transfer of any surplus, no matter how small." (emphasis added). P-Foster with 1 surplus vote must have his surplus transferred prior to Pi. -- 11:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

"He declared that it was Scottish STV" nice to know there is a still a dictatorship of the incredibly unclear here. Not that I object to the elections' outcome, just the method and opacity. 06:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

How are the votes counted? In easy to understand terms.
Can someone please explain in a simple manner how the votes are counted? I have to admit that I don't understand the voting process whatsoever. I did read the description of weighted votes in Wikipedia but apparently I didn't interpret it correctly(?) I had thought that each vote got a weighted value, for instance, if I voted for 5 candidates (I didn't vote for 5, this is a hypothetical) - my #1 choice was equal to 5 votes, my #2 choice was counted as 4 votes, my #3 choice received 3 votes, and so on... but if I understand correctly (and I still may not be reading this right) only my first vote counted? And the others were discarded? That's kind of disturbing. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 18:21, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * That's basically how it works, or, rather, if your first choice wasn't elected, your vote trickled down to someone else, presumably eventually going to someone. It's straightforward enough when there is one position being filled, but with several it gets very confusing very quickly, as the two summaries above indicate. Anyway, the operative word in the voting system used is "single": everyone got one vote. I'm not convinced it was the best system to use in this instance, but it is legit, if irritatingly convoluted. Maybe next time we can use a different system, or at least have that on the table. DickTurpis (talk) 18:41, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was a really bad idea to use it, and it was not explained on the voting page. I had no idea that was what it did, and probably would have voted differently if I knew. Oh well, it's just management incompetence, no big deal.  06:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * and it was not explained on the voting page There is a link to the WP article on the election booth page, and it was explained and justified here, which was linked to from the main election page. -- Nx  / talk 06:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Human, your crankiness is acting up again, with no good reason to. If you want to be a curmudgeon then at least have the decency to complain about things that are actually true, and/or did actually happen, and are actually problems. -- 06:57, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So each round the last place person was eliminated, and the votes they received distributed distributed amongst the other candidates? EddyP Great King! Disaster! 22:59, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but also the surplus votes for a person who receives enough votes to be elected are distributed proportionally (and thus diluted/diminished). -- 23:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * This isn't correct with how it works. If that were the way things would work, one would want to vote for all 20 people, as then ones first preference vote would be worth a weight of 20 as opposed to 5.
 * Everyone's votes carry as DickTurpis mentioned a weight of 1, and that weight was carried down the preference list by eliminating candidates with the least number of votes until a candidate receives enough votes to be elected (quota). Once a candidate is selected, and if they have a surplus of votes (they have more than quota, and thus more than necessary to be elected), then those votes are then distributed at a diminished weight proportional to the surplus. (Yeah, it gets really stupid hard really fast, and the only reason Scottish STV was permitted was that there was promise of having computers do the calculations.) -- 23:01, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * From my understanding, you have one vote, but it doesn't all go to the same person. If our quota is 11, and right off the bat 12 people vote for person A, then person A has a surplus of 1, and that vote gets redistributed, as you only need 11.  But how do you choose where that vote goes?  You can't pick one random voter and have it go to their second place (well, you could, but randomized voting procedures is a whole nother ballpark).  So the only fair way is for everyone who voted for person A have their second choice get a piece of the surplus.  But because there's 12 of them, each redistribution is only 1/12 of a vote.  So after that stage, everyone who voted initially for person A has cast 11/12 of a vote for A and 1/12 of a vote for someone else.  Is that right?  ThunderkatzHo! 23:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes! Exactly!n It gets harder though when person B has 11 1/12 votes, as now $$\frac{1}{11 \frac{1}{12}}$$ of each of those votes goes on to someone else. Especially when one of the votes is only worth 1/12th of a vote in the first place. -- 01:52, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hmmm. Nope, still don't understand. But I am not good at math. The Moderator page says: "20 candidates running for 7 seats." Then why not give everyone 7 votes to cast, and the 7 candidates with the highest total number of votes win? I realize voting is done, but for next time maybe? Or is this too simple or not desirable for some reason? <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 05:38, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * On second thought, nevermind. Since I seem to be the only one that doesn't understand the voting process and I'm sure there is some reason for doing it this way. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 05:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No no no, you're not alone, there are lot of people who don't understand the process, honestly because it's a horrible mess of math and arithmetic. What you're purposing though is a variant of First Past the Post, which is widely decried as not particularly representative. For example, should we force everyone to select 7 candidates? After all, if they don't use all 7 votes, then their voice is not as equal in the election as all others. Ignore the complex mathy part of the matter. You get exactly one vote worth of weight, just like everyone else does. If you vote for a candidate that however gets 90% of the votes, then should the next highest person with 5% get in? Or should the excess votes for the first candidate spill over to preferences, and thus, we find that all 90% of the votes for that candidate spill over to a second candidate, and now THAT candidate has 40%-ish more votes, and would beat the person with only 5% of the vote.
 * It's all really complicated because representative voting is a difficult subject, and there are no simple answers without creating really unjust selections. Getting the most out of each vote and weighting each vote equally becomes difficult in the end. -- 06:11, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

No need to reinvent the wheel
Here's an online STV counting app: https://instantstv.appspot.com/

I created a ballot file with all the extras in the format it expects here. Just put http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Ballot&action=raw into the location box, select Scottish STV from the counting method dropdown, and click process. -- Nx  / talk 06:12, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, let us not verify any results independently. You know, I hear that the Space Shuttle only had/has one computer on board, and only one version of the programming. Oh wait, no, it has three computers, from two different architectures, and all programmed independently. This isn't "reinventing the wheel", because we don't need independent validation of the results produced by a wheel. In voting, we do. -- 06:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I was referring to writing your own program to count the votes, when there are perfectly good ones out there already. This one for example uses OpenSTV, the same one Trent used to count the votes. OpenSTV is now a commercial product, but it used to be free and open source, and you can download version 1.6 (the one used by the web app above) from here (if you're not running ubuntu, download the source package). It also gives you a nice rundown of the elimination process. -- Nx  / talk 06:39, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I understood perfectly what you were talking about, but there's one really big problem with using the exact same code to count the votes that everyone else does: no verification.
 * If there is a bug in OpenSTV, then how would we know? Should we just give up all elections over to the computers, and then we feed in the votes, and they tell us who won? Sound like a perfect world... until SkyNet takes over.
 * Look, I understand the NIH (Not-Invented-Here) and code reuse issues involved in reimplementing the entire process... I am a top-tier code developer after all. But again for simple minds who just want to plug tab A into slot B: the whole idea of reimplementation is to validate results. If we all just used the same source code like it's gospel or something, then we don't really get any real verification, do we? -- 06:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. If you want to count it by hand or write your own program to do it, that's fine. Personally I'd count it by hand and use the step-by-step output of openstv to verify it. Besides, if Trent wanted to rig the election, he would've added fake entries to the ballot file. -- Nx  / talk 07:22, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm a computer programmer, I don't do mundane work by hand. Of course, the fact that Scottish STV only keeps track of partial votes to the 5th decimal place means that counting my hand is unwieldy at best... I'm not particularly concerned about Trent rigging the election (providing sufficient transparency and verifiability of ballots on a wiki is almost impossible). But implementing the process anew and verifying the results of the process is a good thing in my book. After all, we have good reason to believe in evolution because of an enormous amount of data all coming to the same conclusion. Just like in elementary school arithmetic getting the right answer is not sufficient to be correct for grading. You also have to show your work, and your work has to be validated as well. (See above, SR came up with the same answer, but misstepped in process, thus the answer, just like in a fallacious argument, is invalid, even though it is true.) -- 08:13, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * In real life we do indeed tend to trust whatever system is in place. Unless of course you want to start looking for hanging chads. 08:16, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * No Eira as the OpenSTV analysis, which got the same result as me shows, it was you who misstepped. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 10:35, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * *sigh* Ok, let me explain something to you. OpenSTV is not the definition of the Scottish STV. OpenSTV can be wrong in its implementation of Scottish STV. In fact, if it's not keeping partial votes to only 5 decimal places and truncating away the rest of the precision, then it's doing is wrong, definitively. So says the guy who wrote the rules. In fact, it's all over nearly ever calculation in the document, "the calculation being made to five decimal places (any remainder being ignored)." I don't know how I can make it clearer than: OpenSTV is not the definition of Scottish STV, and can be wrong. -- 11:43, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry but two votes against your one say you're wrong. No need to feel bad - evidently a lot of people don't understand STV. Better luck next time. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

SR, don't be condescending dick. Looking over things, my process is not entirely accurate, but then actually, the OpenSTV example is flawed as well. On count 14, you'll notice that there is only a surplus of 0.16666. The difference between the lowest number of votes (8.24999) and the next lowest (8.49998) is 0.24999, and given the legal document defining Scottish STV proper, 4.4 "Votes shall not be transferred where any surplus or surpluses which, at a particular stage of the count, have not already been transferred, are- (a) less than the difference between the total vote then credited to the continuing candidate with the lowest recorded vote and the vote of the candidate with the next lowest recorded vote". Since 4.4.a is met, the 0.16666 vote is exhausted and not transferred.

And this is the whole problem, and exactly what I'm talking about. There are not two votes against me. There is one single implementation of the rules, and your hand-performed "I can't even get alphabetical order right" which calculates to infinite precision by using fractions rather than 5 decimal place calculations. I have 3 processes performed that contradict BOTH of you, so therefore, I have 3 votes over your two. Does that make any sense? No. This isn't an election (ok, well, it is, but which process is right isn't an election). We are not all performing the count ourselves and then voting on who is right. There are rules that are laid out that must be followed. You didn't follow them by transferring Pi's votes before P-Foster's. (Thus violating the rule that you must transfer surplus votes in diminishing order.) The OpenSTV is not implementing a rule, (I grant you it's an obscure and weird rule, but it's a rule nonetheless, and I grant you that my implementation does not implement the rule properly either.) As well, what OpenSTV does that your count and my count doesn't do is properly draw lots to select which candidate to eliminate, because candidates aren't eliminated at the same time (this didn't matter for our election, but imagine if the two people voting for me had Lily as the next preference, thus if ily were selected first, her votes would disappear to other people, but if I were eliminated first, then my two votes, plus her two votes end up being four votes, which means that Human and RobSmith would be eliminated now before her, and if each of their voters had the next preference to her, then she would now have 4+6 votes, or 10 votes, and very well on her way to being elected! That's why I don't like the non-deterministic lot drawing involved in that.)

The whole point of the matter is: OpenSTV is not a perfect implementation of the Scottish STV!!! I don't know how to explain this any better. Worst of all, all this nitpicking is over some 0.00694 of a vote... -- 12:15, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * contradict BOTH of you Who, me? I didn't say you were wrong or that OpenSTV is perfect. -- Nx  / talk 12:37, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got a bit confused along the way. Does all this mean we're painting the hut yellow? Jack Hughes (talk) 12:45, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Canary Yellow, not Goldenrod Yellow.] -- 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Eira, I think you mean "don't be a condescending dick". –SuspectedReplicant retire me 12:55, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, it's missing a comma rather than a word, i.e. "don't be condescending, dick." lol -- 14:05, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So you fail at both grammar and maths. It's really not your day is it? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 16:29, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I thought we were over being condescending dicks, and you were just being a little sarcastic as a cherry on top, which is why I noted that an alternative explanation is not a missing "a", but a missing comma. You were actually correct though in your first assessment. It was supposed to be "don't be a condescending dick". But since apparently you still want to be a jackass, I'm going to point out that bad punctuation is not actually grammar. It's orthography.
 * Next, I'm going to explain how I'm not bad at maths. You see, all of the actual math in my process was done correctly (in fact, I didn't do it at all, the computer did it). What was done incorrectly was that candidates are marked as elected prior to any transfers of votes. But see, there's this stipulation in law that if a piece of phrasing appears in law, that it has to do something. Namely, it has to have some sort of mechanics, because if the phrasing and/or rule was entirely moot, then the language would not appear in the law. If we mark all candidates as elected prior to transfering any surplus votes then the ordering of the transfers of surplus votes is entirely arbitrary, because no votes for a greater surplus would ever transfer to another elected individual, and thus the transfers of surplus votes could happen entirely in parallel even. Being that marking all the candidates elected at the same time obviates an entire rule of the procedures, the rule is entirely unnecessary, and arbitrary. The rules could have stated "surplus votes are transfered in any arbitrary order that is most convenient." Being that it doesn't say that, we have to infer that the ordering of surplus vote transfers has to be significant.
 * Now, so entirely appart from the question of "who's wrong" is the question: "if Eira is wrong, then what kind of error is it?" It's certainly not a math error, because again, the math was done properly. In fact, it's a procedural error. Your claims about me being "bad at math" is  entirely unfounded because I have a minor in mathematics. Not saying that education equals ability (After all, there's a particular lawyer with initials A.S. who is a total idiot), but regardless I'm not an idiot self-deceiving asshole. I'm able to look through my process and note that if it is indeed the case that votes don't transfer to other elected candidates at the same round, then my process was conducted wrongly. But then, I'm also pedantic enough to realize that the 0.16666 vote surplus at count 14 shouldn't have been transfered, because the rules state that it shouldn't be transfered (later described as "deferred" though). The whole point I'm making here is: OpenSTV isn't the definition of Scottish STV. In fact, Scottish STV isn't defined by any implementation, it's defined by a document declaring standards, which anyone and/or everyone should be able to implement with identical results (assuming that when lots are being drawn that they are drawn identically). If the standards aren't clear enough to produce repeatable processes in reimplementations then there is ambiguity that needs to be addressed, but that doesn't make any implementations of that standard that interpreted the ambiguity in the way it was later ruled as proper a defining implementation. Said implementations could later end up being wrong about a different aspect of the process.
 * So all this god damn bickering from you (not from Nx, he understands the idea of verifiablility, and repeating procedures to validate results, unlike it seems SuspectedReplicant) over some god damn stupid shit of like I said some 1/144th to the 5th decimal place error. You don't seem to be claiming that you fail at math for failling to actually do the math at the 5th decimal place, rather than doing fractions. Yet, procedure absolutely dictates in clear and unambiguous words that the math is to be performed to the 5th decimal place with truncation of lesser values. So, in fact, you're transfering a whole 0.000003333333333333333 repeating votes more than you should have been. So, where's your indictment of your own lack of following procedure? Now, if you're done being a dick, I'm done being a bitch, and can we just fucking drop this shit over 1 millionths of votes? -- 02:51, 8 July 2011 (UTC)


 * TL;DR. I know you're upset at being wrong, but I think you need to move on. If you need help understanding STV in the future, feel free to send me an email. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 11:11, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

PR in real life.
I have no problem with the process used and obviously I trust the result. But another thought occurs to me.

If a small group of relatively intelligent, largely mathematically literate and well-intentioned people find the process a tad hard to grasp - then I can't help but wonder what would happen in the general population if such a system were used for national elections.--BobSpring is sprung! 09:02, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to work fine. -- Nx  / talk 09:09, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I do think that the STV system works better with a larger number of voters. With 20 candidates and 86(?) voters for 7 positions I'm not surprised that there are some apparent anomalies. 11:49, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The ties are the biggest issue really. And you're right, with only about 4 ballots per candidate anomalies are almost certain. But when you have some 1,000 ballots per candidate ties are less likely and all the crap about "who transfers first" and "when do they transfer" all pretty much become exceedingly unlikely. Which is kind of the problem with small-group voting... all the rare gotchas are all almost exceedingly common... -- 12:30, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I should point out that there's no voting system that is mathematically "fair" (well, random balloting comes pretty close). You just have to pick the one you disagree with least. At least we're not on a straight FPTP with this. <font color="#CC0000" size="3">ADK <font color=#330033>...I'll derail your Playstation 3! 14:10, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * So with more voters there would be (proportionally) fewer questions. OK. It's sorta counter-intuitive but I'll buy it.--BobSpring is sprung! 14:47, 7 July 2011 (UTC)
 * You know, I understand that no system can be mathematically fair, but I'd rather not have the condition where results can vary widely based on the flip of a coin. It shouldn't be the case that it's possible that one run of the process produces an elimination of a candidate the first count, and in another run of the same process of the same data produces that same candidate as the first elected candidate. -- 02:54, 8 July 2011 (UTC)