RationalWiki talk:Guide for board of trustees election

So is it ready for "prime time"? As in posting it to the saloon bar or intercom? Tmtoulouse (talk) 06:26, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Looks really well thought out to me. Kudos to all who made this a smooth process (smooth until Huw wakes up anyway...Heh.) Aceword up 06:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Lol, who do you think has been working on this in their copious spare time? 03:23, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I have you lazy bastard. You spent the whole time drinking and complaining that whitey was keeping you down. Aceword up 03:29, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * I farted in your general direction, you intoxicated sheepfucker. 03:49, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Is eligibility to vote based on being a member 3 months before the election, or 3 months ago now? Either way, would be cool if you also said it as a "Created after X/Y/Z"? Thanks. Dalek (talk) 02:43, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 3 months from the date of the election, so assuming we get this off on schedule any account created on or before October 10th. Tmtoulouse (talk) 02:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Yey thanks. Where do I sell my vote? Dalek (talk) 02:51, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * While we're on the subject Trent, is the edit count for voting eligibility based on any time before the vote, or before the three month cut-off? -- 03:21, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Does this belong as a sub-page of the RWF page maybe? Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Tough call. There's still plenty of room in the top-level RW space, right?  I don't think it's a big deal, as long as the RWF page links to pages like this one clearly.  03:48, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. By the way, nice job there. Looking forward to meeting our new overlords. Concernedresident  omg!!! ponies!!! 23:21, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Page or subpage doesn't matter. So long as they're clearly linked together and easy enough to find it doesn't matter about their physical location much. I'm inclined to agree with Nx against using subpages too liberally. 13:10, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Present board members
in view of this, is Human fit to retain his seat on the board? Not because he is blocked but do we need someone who behaves like that? Benedict Arnold (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Fuck off random troll. -  π    10:17, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably a sock of a user who doesn't have the machismo to comment with their primary account. Or maybe even Human himself. -- Nx  / talk 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Or one of the possibly half-dozen people who are actually blocked. In any case their opinion is not worth listening too. -  π    10:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * No, I don't think so. I'm not going to demand his removal, but I'm not going to vote for him either. -- Nx  / talk 10:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Do we get to vote for Human? I thought he was the carry over champ. -  π    10:30, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Oops, you're right, there are five options on the voting page, that's what confused me. Anyway, I don't particularly care whether Human is a board member or not (yet, at least). -- Nx  / talk 10:35, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I can state the Human is pretty productive and agreeable in board meetings so far. 16:05, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Note the "in board meetings" disclaimer. :) ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Tampering with the voting machines
What is to prevent someone from tampering with the voting apparatus? Seems the only way to allow anonymous voting and prevent tampering/hacking, would be for voters to create a unique pseudonym and all of these would be listed publicly. (Maybe these would be in a spreadsheet format so that anyone could open it with OpenOffice calc and it would tally the votes automatically.) ~ Lumenos (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * What is to prevent someone from creating multiple "pseudonyms"? -- Nx  / talk 21:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm... Every user who votes says they voted using their regular username. Then we know the total number of voters. ~ Lumenos (talk) 23:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Suddenly, socks! Thousands of them! 23:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) There is a three-month registration prerequisite, is there not? 23:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * More to the point, in my opinion, is what motive would someone really, truely have for tampering with the voting? It isn't like the folks nominated are, in any way, not trustworthy enough to be on the board. Ergo, if someone tampers witht eh voting mechanism, I can see little actual harm that could be done. Yes, someone's vote count could get loaded.But that doesn't diminish their qualifications to be able to be on the board. 23:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * You don't think big. Why should RW not be around for thousands or millions of years? It may be far larger and politically important than WP is today. It may have very charged and polarized elections. When RW dies this will probably be from mismanagement, unless it merges with another wiki. Besides that, I just like the idea of doing voting the right way so that this may be copied and admired by others. It is interesting as a technical puzzle. ~ Lumenos (talk) 16:59, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Actually there is a problem with the technique I have in mind. If somebody posts a false vote, this would invalidate the election. We could detect this but not prevent it. I'm thinking about a solution to this. ~ Lumenos (talk) 17:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was trying to think of a way the voters could be anonymous to those who have server access but that is probably too much work. Anyway, the main goals could be achieved. The following technique would detect computer errors or someone altering the votes: Add a box on the electronic ballot, where you write in a pseudonym. The votes and pseudonyms are used to generate a spreadsheet that would tally all the votes when you open it (in LibreOffice). After the polls close, this spreadsheet is posted publicly along with the usernames of everyone who voted. The list of usernames and ballots would be numbered so we know if these numbers match, there have been no fake ballots added. ~ Lumenos (talk) 11:07, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
 * That conflicts with the honoured tradition of the "secret ballot", though. Troutmaskreplica (talk) 07:54, 10 January 2011 (UTC)
 * No. The ballots would have pseudonyms not our regular usernames... unless you "humorously" refer to blackbox voting with no "paper trail". ~ Lumenos (talk) 01:08, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * You realise that it is next to impossible to create an online voting system where the person with server access is not going to be able to see who voted as with every action the session and IP information is logged? I suspect even with fake accounts most people are just going to log in as per normal, not going through a proxy (although given your paranoia I am sure you use a proxy), and you can compare the pseudonym's IP address with a user's regular IP address. -  π    01:18, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * That is why I dropped that idea. The current proposal is about making the ballots public, but with pseudonyms so that we would know that the votes were actually counted. The election is currently proceeding without this, and I've moved on to questioning the candidates because we only have one week for campaigning. ~ Lumenos (talk) 02:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I have voted early, and when I look up the passwords' to my sock accounts, I shall have voted often. -  π    03:55, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

redirect
I guess that should be a redirect to: "RationalWiki:Guide for board of trustees election". but with any dates changed. Any objections? --BobSpring is sprung! 17:31, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Since the date of registration is the only material difference from year to year, why not just move it to Guide to RationalWiki Board of Directors elections instead of redirecting? 18:11, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Candidates maust have been on RW for one year
Does that include previous accounts? Sophie Wilder  22:54, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * One would assume so given that it's the individual person rather than the online account that is serving as a trustee. Provided there's obvious proof (IP match-up or similar, saying you're SusanG will get you laughed off the site) that one is an older account I can't see it being much of a problem. --  I scariot   Andy Schlafly for Congress 2012! 06:37, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Voting method
STV again? There has been a lot of interest in changing the voting system from single transferable vote to a more standard voting system. Can we talk about this some more? I have a hard time deciding who to cast my vote for, knowing that only my first vote will really have any weight. Sometimes I think two or more candidates are equally capable and/or desirable, so it's difficult using STV. Thanks! Refugee talk page 03:46, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ist past the pooosrt. Firstr guy gets past that post., He4 gets the money. He gets the wimmen. He gets the fucking power., pluse, he gets the post, too./ As a bonus. for being firsrt. !!!Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 03:52, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Egg nog & Rum? lol. Refugee talk page 03:56, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I....I...I fucnin' love you guys. Serisly. You guys are like....you know what? Fuck Nutyy. Fucking prick, thinks hes so smart. Lawyer. La-dee-fucling da. Nuyyt.Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:01, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Funny you should mention me Topsy. I'm writing the voting app this year. It shits out an anonymous ballot, a "tape" backup, oh and I don't know silently rejects people who call me a prick. Foxy couldn't make it to your neck of the woods this year. I can. I was planning on surprising y'all anyway. You ready to die? Let's do this shit. Tomorrow. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:21, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * You would't shoot a man with a head full of N,N-dimethyl-2-(6-methyl-2-p-tolylimidazo[1,2-a]pyridin-3-yl)acetamide, woulld you, Nutty? Woiuold you? Oh God. I don'wannaana die.Theory of Practice "Now we stand outcast and starving 'mid the wonders we have made." 04:26, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Ace totalled his rad ass Peugeot on that shit. Be careful. Email me. I'm coming. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:35, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I ate some Klonopins. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 04:37, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Oooo be careful. Klonopin Refugee talk page 09:05, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Or, nevermind after all.. a friend told me that website is run by Scientology, so who knows how accurate the info is. Refugee talk page 09:07, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I got into them after a pint of rye when ToP rebuffed me and about all that's happening is I'm listening to LCD Soundsystem and sexting. Xenu has ho place in this. [[file:Nuttysig.svg|68px|link=User:Nutty Roux|Nutty Roux]]100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 09:11, 29 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The Citzens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) is indeed a Scientology front group. They are the ones who lead the fight against the evil psychs.  Perhaps Dirk Steele should try out Scientology.  I just had a quick look and it turns out it was co-founded by Dirk's mate Thomas Szasz.  --DamoHi 09:18, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Question
I see the vote is already happening. Is it too late to add my name to the registration page? 10:46, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Give it a try. You've got nothing to lose. Spud (talk) 11:18, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Others have added their names since voting started so it’s probably ok. And if your vote isn’t counted this time, it just means you’ll be registered for next year. —RWRW (talk) 12:35, 19 August 2020 (UTC)