RationalWiki talk:2012 board of trustees election/Nominations

"Nominees should also "accept" their nominations to indicate their presence and awareness of this grand scheme."
"Accept" here is a bit vague - there are now two meanings of accept in the lead. May I suggest changing this one to "acknowledge"? I'd do it myself but I'm still noobtastic... Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:38, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see what the problem is, but there's also no harm in changing a word out.  09:42, 2 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry if I'm a bit pedantic with teh wurdz, I've been spending the weekend reading Freeman on the land bollocks. My head is full of junk legalese. Rennie McGreet (talk) 09:45, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Is there going to be a campaigning-ish page?
I was just wondering, because I have a few (or rather, just one) significant endoresment I'd like to make for one of the candidates (and, no, that endorement is not for me). 13:59, 14 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Nutty Roux has made a campaign statement, but my view is that this election should be like the election of a judge — campaigning and partisanship minimized. 00:13, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with ListenerX. I, too, am uncomfortable with the idea of having campaigns for the Board of Trustees.  It may have been fun for Moderator elections, but for Trustee elections it would come across as needlessly debasing and politicizing (witness the fight that broke out on the Moderator campaigns page).  The Trustees' job is boring serious business, and their elections should reflect that.   01:07, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
 * No, I agree. Which is why I called it a "campaigning-ish" page and not a campaign page. Nevertheless, I posted my endorsement on the talkpage of Nutty's campaign statement and, if it wasn't obvious, I completely endorse him for the position of Trustee as my first and foremost choice and above and beyond all other candidates and incumbent Trustees. 09:57, 15 January 2012 (UTC)