RationalWiki talk:Elections to the Loya Jirga/February 2010

Any limitations on how many one can nom? 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Nom? depends on your stamina I suppose... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Whats the voting procedure? Etaroced (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Can I play? 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Just seconding ToP's and Ace's nomination. --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Toast: no. Etaroced: until we decide the powers and limitations of the LJ and how we revamp the voting, we won't vote. 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I think we agreed that the Loya Jirga be made up of 7 'crats... but I don't know if that means members get made 'crats, or have to be 'crats already. Broccoli (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * 'cratting someone is a different procedure than this. I don't people should be made 'crats just for this. Acei9 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's a big enough thing to organise, and getting new crats would just complicate things at the moment. -- 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) On WP (zzzz) admin hopefuls have to go through a rigorous interview process (which has put me right off ever applying) in which they have to answer searching questions. Maybe a less intensive version of that? Or just spin the bottle? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that voting rights be restricted to users who have been around for some time and who are not known socks.--BobIt's cold! 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Sounds good. But how are we going to elect the 7? Does each person only get 1 vote, or 7 votes? How will this work? Broccoli (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven per user seems sensible. 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting procedure
Once we get what they will do sorted out, I suggest we set a time limit on voting, keep the voting and discussion on separate pages and restrict voting to users who have been here for (say) two months and aren't socks. Once the limit is up, we instate the members. 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * We need guidelines and responsibilites first. Acei9 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I was saying. 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The crats
Here's a list of the crats who put their names down for it:

Yurp

 * Weaseloid
 * Toast
 * Phantom Hoover
 * SuperJosh
 * Totnesmartin

Murika

 * TheoryOfPractice
 * Aboriginal Noise

Kanadia

 * Kels

Down under

 * Ace

'Crats?
I don't think everyone on the list is a 'crat. Is going to be 'crats or everyone? Acei9 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought it was just crats, so those are the only ones I copied across here. There were about 4 people I think we aren't crats. -- 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)
 * You should take care with crats. Remember that User:Theemperor (and his multiple names)is thought to be a sock of Marcus.--Hitman (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice one, MC. 14:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not Marcus. I'm talking about the edit that Theemperor made at ASK.  Check out RWW.--Hitman (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Theemperor
 * Thanks, now go away and play elsewhere. Persons who create accounts purely for the purpose of being negatively snarky are likely to be disregarded. 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Better link
 * And shall feel the wrathful power of the Loya Jirga. All hail the Loya Jirga! ;) --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting
Should candidates vote? Another question; when voting, do you list your name, then the 7 names you vote for? 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought we would have separate level-4 headers for each candidate and have people sign their username under each. 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If candidates do not vote, I think we will have very few people actually voting... 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Candidates should be allowed to vote, since we are voting for more than one person it'd be silly for them not to have a say along with everyone else on who else should be in the LJ (also assuming everyone nominated votes for themselves as one of their 7 options, that action would be self cancelling) --[[Image:TheEgyptiansig001.png|link=User:TheEgyptian]] 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * franchise: only members on or before 30th Jan? 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)(i.e. before Forum LJ was created)
 * That is good. 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(disenfranchises:
 * 1 February 2010 Moghopper
 * 1 February 2010 Hitman ‎
 * 31 January 2010 Michael ‎
 * 31 January 2010 Colonel of Squirrels
 * 31 January 2010 Moonriddengirl ‎
 * 31 January 2010 Vm‎
 * 31 January 2010 Doc Holiday
 * 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Just btw one of them might, or might not, be my sock
 * Doc Holiday? Acei9 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should be "Holliday." Disenfranchised for that reason alone.-- 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How many of my socks are allowed to vote? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't get me and the rest of MarcusCicero's socks started... &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I just thought of something: are we just going with simple majority here, or will we cut out candidates until 7 clear winners emerge? Broccoli (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is such granularity that there will likely have to be runoffs. 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP VOTING!!!
And let me tidy it up! 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, was baout to say its a complete fucking mess. Acei9 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry. I got confused and put all my votes in the "Nominations" section. 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm fed up with ECs. Any votes lost you'll have to reinsert yourself. 20:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it was a very bad idea to put all the voting on one page. Captain Obvious (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Really? What would you suggest? 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A subpage for every nominee? Captain Obvious (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeoman Obvious. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Think I'll come back to it when the furore has died down after being ECd FOUR times. (and TWICE here!) 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the place to express opinions?
And make reasoned arguments / baseless accusations against nominees? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block
 * Here, I suppose. 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Maybe Captain Obvious was right about the subpages...this could get messy. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd just like to note that, aside from being the kind of pompous ass that votes for him/herself, ListenerX will hijack this wiki, creating and tirelessly defending off-mission, pet articles to coincide with his endless, psuedoscientific biases. If don't you want a bunch off bullshit articles, constant reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Reds, Reds, Reds, don't vote for ListenerX. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Should have called myself Aardvark. @Nu: too true, if the LJ were dictating content, but they're not. 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, LX actually creates articles and is not obviously insane. Broccoli (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * And as said elsewhere, his *different* views make him a good defence against groupthink. He's not "one of us." Totnesmartin (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Goat
Why the hell isn't there a "goat" category to vote for? 21:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'd like to vote for the mob. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is no such option. Captain Obvious (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is now a goat option. 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting for yourself?
I note ListenerX has voted for himself. Are we allowing that? Acei9 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Me neither. Users are expressing their views on which 7 memebers would make the best Loya Jirga HCM avoidance team. Broccoli (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't really mind, was just wondering. Acei9 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think it's okay, but should reflect poorly. It's clear that someone who votes for themselves is the lake woebegone kind of assclown that we wouldn't want having the power they are so desperate for. There are lots of other great choices. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Politicians can vote for themselves, why not us? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think nominees should vote for themselves - it's ok and shows they have an interest in the job. Refugee talk page 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, no point voting for someone who doesn't even think that they themselves are worthy. PS, what's the job pay?  02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not necessarily. One can not vote for oneself due to a sense of being sporting. 21:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uncampaigning"
Following the above, since I have no intention to vote for myself, can I recommend that the kind folks who voted for me re-allocate that vote? And if I get back down to zero, strike or delete me from the list so no one else makes a similar sincere but dangerous mistake. 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm with Hitchhiker's on this. Anyone who actually wants to be in public office should be automatically disqualified from standing. Which probably leaves Human as our Zaphod. Bondurant (talk) 13:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But what if the wrong lizard gets in? Totnesmartin (talk) 13:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Anyone who doesn't want the job should remove themselves from the list, as should anyone who thinks they have no chance of winning, because this will reduce the number of run-offs and any confusion once voting is over. Broccoli (talk) 14:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tied votes
Sod's law says it'll happen if we don't have a way of sorting it: what about tied votes? Do we go down to number of crats who voted? Most page views on their RWW page? Most interesting sig? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Battle to the death? Acei9 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're on different continents, what we gonna use, ICBMs? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've only used 6 votes in case of this eventuality. 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * What happens if you have voted for those two already? BTW, I haven't used up all my votes either. 16:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have speculated that there will have to be runoffs. 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Alphabetical order.  21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * See my second comment below under more-more-more. We'll use IRV, except it won't be very instant since we'll be doing it manually.  02:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This is not the content you are looking for. Move along.  -- 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Let me rephrase that - the second half of my first comment at Mmm.. 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Top trumps? 14:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * cars, ships, planes or Harry Potter?
 * Ties should be settled by a drinking contest. I hope ListenerX is involved.   18:10, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why me? 18:14, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Time to decide
There's 45 minutes to go, and two people tied for seventh place. We'd better decide how this is going to be sorted. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The only thing I can do is use my 7th vote for you Martin or remove my vote for Bob. Give it another 1/2 hour. 23:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Present situation: 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't suppose there's a way we could have eight, is there (says someone who voted for both Bob and Totnesmartin)? Bob Soles (talk) 23:46, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seven and eight seem too selective. Can we have ten? ;________; --  = w =  23:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Need an odd number. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 23:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * In all seriousness, I love the number eleven. It has seen me through dark times. --  = w =  23:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hee! Nice try Mei! 23:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Broken the tie the only way I could. Sorry, Bob. 23:58, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Just like to add that's a pretty damn good B team there as well. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF
How the hell did I get so many votes? I never even paid anyone much ! --Kels (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A guy can hope for reciprocation, can't he? &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you post drawings of naked women. I never post mine up (they're shite) so I'm trailing badly. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 'cause we like you. Simples! 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Cripes, I gotta get my skills up so I can post more pics come summer. Nothing 'til then, mind, but after that I should be able to do a bit more.  Our class got chewed out again for not putting in enough hours, so it's to my best interest to really start working my tail off from now to the end of April. --Kels (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Even though I disagreed about the need for a more normal wiki structure, you got my vote for the same reason as LX: 'has been known to add content' and 'probably not crazy'. Broccoli (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All depends on your definition of both terms, I suppose... --Kels (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC) You got my vote for the same reason I got my own vote: unlikely to be a party to any conflict that needs the Loya Jirga's attention. 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * But the cabal does not preside over content! &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * that's because, of course, there is no content. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is only xul. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

moremoremore!
Too many good choices - I want to vote for everyone! Can't we have 9 instead of 7? There are some more people I want to vote for. Also, would like to see Psygremlin and Javascap on the list. Refugee talk page 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I also want to vote for Ace for Lord High Ruler Supreme of Everyone. :p Refugee talk page 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The point is that this be a small group. Javascap voted goat, presumably indicated a mild lack of interest. I would say nominate any 'crat you want, but voting has already started (the process of creating the Loya Jirga has been deliberatly rushed and hasty make sure it gets created). On a related point, what about taking off some of the candidates with few votes and allowing votes for them to be re-cast for others. Isn't this called single transferable or something? Broccoli (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Users should be able to withdraw & recast their own votes if they wish, but not discount other people's votes arbitrarily. 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * At Refugee, this New Kabal will be a rotating job, so you can vote for more people next time. At Broccoli, no, that step comes after the polls close - if there aren't 7 clear losers winners, lowest vote-getter is removed, their supporters get to re-allocate their votes, repeat until we have 7.  02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since when will this rotate? I think once they are elected, their first task after sorting any HCMs should be to work out the rest of their role and the rules, etc. Broccoli (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I htink yeah, the first business will be sorta defining what they (the Loya) do. We have done this quickly so it doesn't get lost over pages and pages or trolled mercilessly. I think once the HCM's settle down and leave it'll be more a moderator role. Acei9 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, once they settle in they'll have to determine how their terms of office will work. 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, can we call them The Graphite Rods? The Neutron Stars? 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * They shouldn't get to decide their own terms of office after being elected. Why not just make it six months?  Anyone take issue with that number?-- 02:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My original idea for Miniluv was as a bit of snark at TOP a group that wouldn't even start talking until HCM 4 and would kick into gear in time to prevent HCM 2. Broccoli (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @AD - I think 6 months is too long, how about 3?
 * @Broccoli - you are right in principle but people might approach the Loya to settle something. Acei9 02:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I take issue with the over-complicated, unnecessary 'term limits'. The Loya Jirga is merely a tool that the mob will use. If anyone turns out to be a problem member, I'm sure that someone will start a vote to depose them. Ace: good idea. Almost certain to happen. Broccoli (talk) 02:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because it's a set group, rather than a new sort of user privileges. And so it should rotate so not just one small group remains there for a long time,.  And so it should have terms to allow it to rotate.-- 02:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think 3 months is good. Will consecutive terms be allowed?  If so, how many?  Infinite?  I could see wanting to keep a good person in there forever.  02:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes to consecutive, forever. If they keep getting the pick of the mob.  Someone who is good at helping people compromise, keeping out trolls, and getting things solved quietly should be allowed to stay forever.-- 02:29, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since the Loya Jirga isn't hopefully going to be used very often, I think short terms are silly: A Jirga might be elected, and then never do anything. Also, we will have to vote like we are doing now on a regular basis... stupid elections all the time. And the Loya Jirga requires active members: as members become inactive, they will have to retire and be replaced. Broccoli (talk) 02:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good point. We need a poll on whether 3 months, 6 months, or 12 months.  There seems to be significant disagreement here and a poll should answer.-- 02:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Since they're going to be in for a long time, regardless, why don't we wait until they are elected before undermining them? Broccoli (talk) 02:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 12 months way is to long. Either way, people will retire get bored have RL to deal with so aint a problem. Acei9 03:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Since they're going to be in for a long time" you made that up. Why not set their terms before they are elected, or at least figure that out ourselves, that's how most real world shit works.  Also, RW likes to have giant votes as often as possible, if you hadn't noticed. It's the one thing that brings us together as a community. That and a cool empty side-by-side.  03:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My "short list" is down to nine, and that doesn't include me. The open voting (as opposed to sekrit bullit) makes it weird. I want the best, but I don't want to offend my friends if I put them at 8 or 9. What is a wikiclumper to do???? 04:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Explain your reasons in detail somewhere-or-other. 04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I struggled with the who-do-i-not-offend problem, but then realised I had to vote for the good of the wiki, rather than flattering seven mates. This is a good reason for having regular elections, you can spread the luuurve make best use of our many talents. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Funny
We really know how to run a secret ballot, don't we? Hehe... it's a good thing this is just a wiki, because we are demonstrating one sure way not to run anything real! Electing a body (admittedly with little "power"), with exposed voting, whose first job will be to work out their range of responsibilities and how, if ever, they will cycle out of it. Can I be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces? 02:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Always the fucking cycnic. Acei9 02:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Surely youmean "cyclic"? Or "picnic"?  I'll bring the ants!  Yum yum.  04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Undecided
I have no idea who to vote for. Is anyone running on any sort of platform? Do we really have no mission statements or campaign promises? What sort of election is this? I sort of feel I should vote for Trent, for running certain shit (or whatever it is exactly he does) and maybe for SirChuck, if for no other reason then so Jpatt can whine about the Affirmative Action Loya Jirga (and Chuck, like Halo, is a pretty cool guy), and maybe throwing a sympathy vote over to SuperJosh because the little guy is getting less support than Alan Keyes. But I'm basically at a loss here. So if anyone wants an opportunity to court a truly undecided voter now is your chance. This is your key demographic here people. Let's hear your pitch. Why do you deserve my vote (or at least one of seven)? DickTurpis (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're trying to pick people who can crush dissent stop disagreements between editors flaring into HCM. It should be about sensible people, rather than dubious 'manifestos'. Broccoli (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * "Sensible"? What the hell do you mean by that? If any of us were sensible we wouldn't spend an inordinate amount of time on a wiki primarily making fun of another wiki. And what does "HCM" mean? Helsinki City Marathon? Alright then, candidates, convince me you're sensible in 100 word or less and get my vote. DickTurpis (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or, just as good, convince me your opponent isn't sensible. DickTurpis (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Aboriginal Noise, Kels, Armondikov and LX are good because they don't usually get involved in ridiculous disputes and add content to the wiki. Ace, Hoover and TOP are good because they more-or-less agreed with my opinion on the Loya Jirga. I think. Human is too insane and Theemperor is too paranoid about MC. Broccoli (talk) 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, I also don't get involved in ridiculous content disputes, nor do I add content to the wiki. So if I'm looking for someone just like me, someone I can have a beer with, then I guess they're just the Joe the Plumber I'm looking for (though If I'm looking for a drinking buddy Ace and Human are probably just the mofos for me). But I'm an elitist. I demand the best and the brightest. Though I am leaning towards Kels at the moment. Not sure why. DickTurpis (talk) 03:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry. I was bending spacetime in my direction.  I'll stop now. --Kels (talk) 04:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nominate Kels for leader of band of superheroes. --  = w =  04:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, I think I can sum up my dilemma in 10 words or less: you bastards all look the same to me. What sets any of you apart from the shithead standing next to you? Will voting for one of you over another make any difference? DickTurpis (talk) 04:54, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am the only one so far who has made a serious promise, if that helps any. 04:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm a bit taller than Ace, I think, but he's got a better tan. --Kels (talk) 12:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm easier to intimidate (according to t'other half [I let her think that!]) 13:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Campaign promises. TEN WORDS OR LESS

 * Crush dissent under my iron fist. Opposition is summarily gulag'd -- 03:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Probably not insane. Also, ale and whores. --Kels (talk) 03:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Firesign Theater ftw.
 * I should like to state I have that t-shirt. -- 20:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Well go ahead and state it, you have my permission (and my persimmon). --Kels (talk) 02:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A pot in every chicken, a hummer in every... 03:53, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We could do worse. We already have. Walrus rape. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:56, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Best. Haiku. Ever. --Kels (talk) 04:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is not the haiku 5-7-5 rather than 4-5-3 in terms of syllables? 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Walrus rape destroys the conventions of mere human haiku. --Kels (talk) 04:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Mei is useful. Vote for Mei. --  = w =  03:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Mei is useful. 04:57, 3 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Will keep my hair on in judgments. 04:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I think what you meant to say was "I will keep the Reds in the Loya Jirga quarantined". Just sayin'  -- 02:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Will not quarantine Reds in Loya Jirga. 03:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I promise to continue to punk my punk! 04:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Declare "Baby Got Back" as the official RW Anthem 06:36, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I will email my password to my supporters. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * King Log 13:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Read it. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:41, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is that "Reed it!" (an instruction) or "Red it" (a comment)? 13:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The one that works as a joke. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * So: you weren't saying anything? [[image:Kiss.gif]] 14:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (See User talk:Totnesmartin) 14:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not usually a douche!  13:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * May feign interest in HCM or debate based turmoil. 14:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nice to see you around Armond. 14:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Insane in the right ways, 18:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Impartial, stays out of HCM, DFTT. Also: potatoes. 18:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote for Ace or me, to cover the nighttime hours.-- 05:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Don't Panic! 09:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Where are

 * Nx!
 * Pi!
 * Tom Moore! --  = w =  03:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Tom Moore is now AD, or something like that. Is he there? Nx and Pi are too busy being insect overlords with root access, probably should get special medals from the Committee, not be on it.  04:20, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Human on Nx and Π. They do a good job and are waaaaaay tooooooo under-appreciated. 04:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I would have voted for Nx and Pi if they had been there. I saved two votes just in case.
 * I am indeed now AD instead of TomMoore. I withdrew from nomination because I wasn't a 'crat.-- 04:30, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that AD, but I am not really interested Loya Jirgaing. I am trying to spend less time online and more time studying. 08:40, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I have looked at the history and Nx apparently removed himself. AD is a good name for a crat & Jirga Lawyer. --  = w =  04:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * From my interactions with Nx I have always got the impression that he is not that interested in the politics and is more interested in the technical bits. 12:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Nx was nominated but took his name of the list. Pi is not on the list until we can cast 22/7 votes. Totnesmartin (talk) 13:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I think ADD/Tom might be a 'crat by now, or will be soon, last I saw the discussion at the SB... 22:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah. I added myself to the nominees here, but it was pretty much too late.  Which is actually pretty okay by me, I just wanted to help out if I could as one of only two people who live in Asian time zones.-- 22:19, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Speaking of time zones, we could accidentally end up with 7 LiveJournalists who are all in the same time zone. It won't happen judging by the voting so far, and it's not really supercritical, since the LemonJuice is supposed to be poured slowly and carefully, but it is something to keep in mind.  Maybe next time there should be a "seat" for each corner of the cubic day, and 3 "at LargeJimmy" seats?  01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I cannot even count how many memes you just used in one comment.--

Wait...
I just happened to peak over here for the first time, I thought people were volunteering for the job. While I appreciate the nomination and the support I have received so far I don't think I am particularly well suited for such a position. My time constraints are pretty intense and my ability to actually monitor RationalWiki to any significant degree is pretty limited. It is hard to know how to solve a problem when you haven't been seeing what caused it to develop.

The time I have to devote to RW is best utilized maintaining the server, and hopefully writing content here soon again. I would like to withdraw, hopefully with enough time for those who voted for me to change their votes. Perhaps we should make sure that the people being elected are both able and willing to serve the post? tmtoulouse 04:26, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree with Trent on this one. We shouldn't force folks into things they don't wish to be a part of. For example: should we really elect Armondikov if she has left the wiki? 04:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kinda why I didn't vote for him in the first place. He already runs the place, we wanna load conflict resolution on top of the poor guy too?  He's got a courseload to think of. --Kels (talk) 04:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I yanked him. I didn't pull Armondikov, because it's one thing to be on break/gone and another to actively decline the duty.  If Armondikov wins but doesn't show up, then we just put in someone else.-- 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I almost said earlier "people voting for Trent need to know that he is often gone for months at a time", but then I thought of the article per hour club and wondered if his habits were going to change. 04:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also not Frazier's (?) role to interfere in the day-to-day goings on at Walden 2 (sorry Nutty, I still owe a mail package). 04:47, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * PPS also also, make sure everyone who voted for him knows to re-vote for someone else, k? 04:48, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The nice thing about article creation is it can be done off line, and fairly quickly relative to following the social ebb and flow of the wiki! When I don't even really "know" half of the current active editors, let lone follow the various threads and talk pages where the heart of the community beats, I am not a great candidate for it. I will just keep the hamsters fed, and try and get back to writing content instead of wasting my lunch hour playing Amateur Surgeon on adult swim's website. tmtoulouse 04:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Amateur Surgeon is a really fun game! The time constraints can be a bear, though.   13:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Account
I've created a Loya Jirga account for use by the LJ when issuing pronouncements. I'll give the password to one member of the LJ when they are elected & they can change it and tell the others what the current one is. On new elections the same procedure can be carried out. OK? Comments ... 14:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * you can find my comment in the block log. Totnesmartin (talk) 14:23, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Children
I feel that two votes is far to little. I am the Goat, after all. 19:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Vote Jeboa. The Jerboa will solve all your problems, and shine your shoes while you sleep. -- 21:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We didn't want you to stain your pristine character with grubby politics. May I shine your hooves with a jerboa? Totnesmartin (talk) 10:22, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You may. And Jeeves: though you have strayed from the flock, you will be spared my goaty vengeance for now. [[Image:Goat.jpg|alt=Goat|text-bottom|40px|link=User:Goat]] 10:48, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

A vote against Human
(1) Human has a long-established animosity towards any formal rules or power structure on the wiki. He disrespects rules and any process used to create them (viz the time he asked the Community Standards revamp effort to be entirely halted because he didn't like it, after several dozen edits by over a dozen people—most of them prominent users—had been made to the relevant page. I'm sure some of you can remember more recent examples). (2) Human has also demonstrated exceedingly poor judgment, such as his recent sysopping of TK. (3) When push comes to shove, Human would rather enforce his own biases than any ideals of fairness. Case in point, he once sysopped a user after they said they didn't want to be (later arguing that users should have no say in whether they get demoted or not), and another time he de-bureaucratized another bureaucrat with no discussion because he got into a fight with them (later justifying his actions by dismissing her as a "shrill edit whore"). So again, no. 20:32, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Good for you. Tell you what, next presidential election, write on the ballot why you aren't voting for all the candidates you aren't voting for, too. 20:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Its your whinging, why should I move it? It doesn't have any place on the project page, didn't know if you wanted to replace it on the talkpage, thought maybe you'd want to add a section on why you are votong against me also for moving your comments. Acei9 20:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't worry about it RA, I count at least seven people with a solid lead over me, most of whom will pick up another vote when I get around to adding mine. On the topic of vote counting, while the 5-10-15 thing is sorta cute, why don't we just keep a running total at the end or beginning of each person's list of supporters?  22:21, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would need to be constantly updated, & not everyone does that while voting. The 5-10 thing seems quite handy.   22:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. No big deal.  01:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, I see someone took the trouble to replace all the *s with #s. Nice.  21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thought that it was understood that there were only to be positive votes and not negative ones in order to avoid bad feelings. I feel that this has now soured the issue. 09:37, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * S'ok, 'tis but a tempest in a teacup. 21:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote for random chance
I'd like to make one of The Seven a magic 8-ball-like random response generator. I think the people voting goat can relate to this, as the whims of the fucktards who lead this up are going to be just as capricious. &mdash; Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block 21:25, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For the second election, we could do that. We can collect up all the quotes from the first term and copy and paste them together like the Schlafly quote generator. 21:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Rejected votes
I have taken the liberty of rejecting the votes I have received from from: I trust this is acceptable.--BobIt's cold! 14:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Jack Hughes. Not an established member.  Possible sock.
 * TK. For reasons which may be imagined.
 * Bob - I'm glad you gave an explanation. Yes, Jack Hughes is a sock of (amongst others) Bob Soles. However I have only voted once (my other socks haven't) so (a) I am an established user and (b) whilst a sock I am not an abused sock. Jack Hughes (talk) 14:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you would care to re-vote as Bob Soles? I seem to recall that we said we would not accept sock votes.  I would be happy to receive your vote under that identity.--BobIt's cold! 14:19, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Hear hear! 14:21, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All done. Bob Soles (talk) 14:26, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Thanks for your support.--BobIt's cold! 15:13, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm not thrilled by TK voting for me, either. It's almost an anti-vote. 05:18, 4 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, among the choices presented, I seriously voted for those who have exhibited a semblance of fairness, not necessarily towards me, because HCM always seems to entail even the most banal of posts from me given the wiki history, but towards RW users in general, and that, I assumed, was what the voting was about. --TK/MyTalk|undefinedRW User #45 06:31, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As long as your votes were in good faith, I suppose... still, I hope that I do not "earn" a spot on the LumpenJackal by one vote. 09:39, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was holding one vote back which I think should get you out of that one.--BobIt's cold! 20:53, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I am one of the more marginal candidates. I would not wish my presence on the LG to be as a result of votes from those who may not necessary have the best wishes of the wiki at heart. If one of MS's socks had voted foe me I would have rejected that as well.--BobIt's cold! 09:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, Terry didn't vote for me.... My faith in myself has been shattered. 15:16, 4 February 2010 (UTC)
 * He doesn't like prunes, either. I'm devastated. 16:12, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Mei IS useful
18:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Seconded.  18:44, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks @^______^@ --  = w =  18:56, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * She is very useful. We should keep her. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 18:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

When should we close voting?
We're going to have to have a cutoff line sometime. Should we make it Sunday midnight, which would give us a full week? or when voting fizzles out, with no new votes in a 24-hour period? What's best? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There is already a notice on the page giving the closing time. 19:29, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, Totnes. Pull it together man, jeez. Get some new glasses. To think I voted for someone who can't read. Etc etc, instert more harrassment. Acei9 19:33, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That wasn't there when I read it two days ago. Do I have to re-read the entire thing every day in case something changed? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:39, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Good god man! It was there from the start, aaaahhhhhhhhrrrgh! Acei9 19:41, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You expect me to remember that far back? Totnesmartin (talk) 19:50, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No, Mr Martin, I expect you to die. Acei9 19:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Am I too late to nominate myself?--Tolerance (talk) 22:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry about the Double Post.--Tolerance (talk) 22:33, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Voting ends at midnight GMT (UTC) tonight... though if you get 26 votes in the next 68 minutes I'll be surprised. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I was told Below that 1. Nominations had Cloaed and 2 that I am not eligible.--Tolerance (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * If you'd read this whole thread you'd see how much attention I've been giving to the rules of the game. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:10, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting System
I know it's a bit late to mention this, but the chance has been missed to use the Single Transferable Vote system for these elections. It's a much better system for elections with multiple vacancies, although the drawback is that counting the results and working out the results would probably have taken hours. There's a good article here as well as the obligatory WP article. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 19:36, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We're still gonna kind of use that, at least in my universe - if we don't have 7 clear winners, drop the lowest vote-getter and let their supporters reallocate, repeat until we have 7 winners. Of course, to have this problem, the tie would have to be between #7 & #8.  Be pretty funny if that happened, especially if it was more than two way.  21:58, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh hell no. I am an "above the line", it now takes me over 20 minutes to fill in one of those forms. 22:02, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've been assuming we were using that system, which is why I ask people to de-nominate themselves if they think they aren't going to win, to allow their supporters to vote elsewhere. Broccoli (talk) 23:27, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Or their supporters could do it themselves if they wished? and who's to say there won't be a late swing to, say, Weaseloid? It ain't over till the fat jerboa squeaks. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:57, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Am I To late to Nominate myself?--Tolerance (talk) 22:27, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Err. Yup! 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Whrn was the Deadline?--Tolerance (talk) 22:32, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * For nominations, sometime last Monday. 22:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * OK. Can I Put my name down in Advance for the next Elections?--Tolerance (talk) 22:41, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Didn't realise that you were a 'crat. 22:48, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm n0t. Do I take it that this is a Qualification?--Tolerance (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Err... yes? 22:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't see why anyone can't run. 07:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

A question for candidates
Would it be to much to ask successfull Loyal Jurgans if they are committed enough to the site to be financial supporters of Rationalwiki as well as decision makers? I wouldnt want to suggest that a regular subscrption is a requirement but it would be reassuring to know that they put their money where thier mouth is by tossing tmtouluse a few bucks to keep the site going. Terry Sita (talk) 17:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've donated on several occasions, several Pi at a time.  17:51, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've donated several times in the past (actually, I had a regular monthly donation), but going to school I can't really afford much of anything.It's not like I don't want to. --Kels (talk) 17:53, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)I think that *is* too much to ask. it would mean trent combing through the financial recodrs to see who paid and who didn't, and potentially getting non-payers off the Joy of Lurgy, which isn't really on - can't people donate anonymously? There is also the matter of people perfectly willing and able to do stuff here, but who can't afford to pay for its upkeep. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * LJ are not supposed to be better than anyone else - they're supposed to be even-tempered and capable of solving problems. And since donating has nothing to do with their job, it would carry the wrong message to require that.  But of course you can use whatever metric you want - maybe you think that's a sign of commitment to the site.-- 18:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I wouldnt expect trent to check up on anyone as it would be an infringement of privacy connecting donations with users. I just wondered if people care nough about RW to actually support it when they seem so fired up about disagreements. I can understand if students and pensioners cant aford it but if normal working people cant be bothered to find the price af a beer evry month then maybe its more about egotism. All it takes is for people to honestly say yes or no. After all we would trust them to tell the truth woulnt we? Terry Sita (talk) 18:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It is equally wrong to ask the LJ to disclose whether they donated or not as it is to ask you to disclose the same, given your very...concerned comments. A far better metric here is, do they have a history of flying off the handle and/or contributing to HCM?   --Kels (talk) 19:26, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, what Kels said. They're just there to keep things working and not spinning into self-indulgent drama.-- 23:50, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Note
My votes encapsulate the views of two people. I hope that is permitted. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 22:08, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As far as we're concerned you're one editor. 22:12, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you, Toast. Dark Matter Glaucopis (talk) 22:15, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * My other half has been known to edit on this account even though she's got her own. Not often though. 22:22, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
 * That's kind of romantic.-- 23:37, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

L* J*
If we make a banner for the LJ, I think it should absolutely have a random element to supply varying L-words and J-words.-- 23:59, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Loya Jirga

 * Ace McWicked
 * Genghis Khant
 * Human
 * Kels
 * TheoryOfPractice
 * Toast


 * Bob M ?
 * Totnesmartin ?

I broke the tie by voting for TM then you postempted me by voting for Bob M Well done! weaseloid. I didn't want to be responsible for it but you made it silly! 00:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

--  = w =  00:27, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry Mei :-( If only we could vote for more people! That is such a cute animation too. Refugee talk page 00:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thank you Refugee. ^_____^ All things Konata are cute. I am touched for each person who voted for me anyway so don't worry. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah this is kinda funny. Maybe one of them will decline or something, let's see what they say before we hold a tiebreaker vote.-- 00:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I still say it should be the top 9, not 7. There is a ton of support for the top vote getters, we want them, and it's too close to call.. why not have the top 9? <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 00:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * ;_______________________________________; -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * (And by that I mean 'but wait, I am number 10!') -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've asked them each on their talk pages: give it some time. 00:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We should have them both. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 00:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Agree with Refugee. I see no reason to exclude one of them (both excellent candidates) only because we liked the number seven. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Odd number to avoid 50-50 splits. 00:43, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Indeed.-- 00:45, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EC - What do you think of 9? -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, 9. People want the two that are tied in equal numbers - there should be a way to have both. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 00:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 9 seems good. Toast?-- 00:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * EC - (I also like 11 ;____;) -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * # 9 (Armondikov) has apparently retired. 00:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Armondikov has been editing RW every day, including today. The retired template is predeeded by: "The following is now officially subject to change. We'll see." <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 00:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Then we're done and set.-- 00:55, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm off to bed: Seey'all tomorrow. 00:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Not really, I don't like the idea of changing the rules after the event, especially when there only seems to be three people making this decision. And this should be on the election page. 00:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ok, let's put it to a vote. 7 or 9? <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 00:59, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * & is what we have been working towards the whole time, we were each given 7 votes. 01:03, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * There were originally 7 posts so we should still have 7 posts. If nobody wants to withdraw then we'll have to go through the elimination process as votes for candidates with the fewer or fewest votes are re-cast. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I thank my voter and hereby state I do not care about this so long as I can continue to be the Warden of Superjail--Thanatos (talk) 05:18, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Tie
With the current tie, it's been proposed we expand the LJ to 9 (to keep an odd number) and just include both the tied people and the person who would have come after them. Thoughts?-- 01:01, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * We could vote on it. If we do, we should leave voting open for a while - barely anyone is here right now. Mei is obliged to vote for 11 ftr. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Closing voting right in the middle of the big foot-the-ball game, were the ball is carried and thrown rather than kicked, was a bad idea. 01:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * All these mishaps will only make our next election more efficient. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  01:38, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Is there some sort of sporting contest that we should have known about, Pi? TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:41, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I believe the Merkins are engaged in some kind of contest whereby the team that shouts "whoo!" and "come on!" most, wins.
 * Changing the rules because they've resulted in an inconvenience is wrong. This outcome was already discussed: elimination and redistribution is the way to go. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Why the assumption an odd number is necessary. le3t's vote on that.  The US Senate doesn't need an odd number.  RobSmithdon't bother me 01:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Because the US Senate has a chairman who only votes in the event of a tie. Come on, Rob - I'm British and I know that. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 01:52, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

"The US Senate doesn't need an odd number." The Supreme Court does. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 01:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ummm, the US Senate tie breaker is not directly elected by the people, as Senators are. It's been proposed (mostly by the communist left) that we do away with the Electoral College, which is how the Senate tie breaker is elected. RobSmithdon't bother me 01:58, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A few ways of looking at this--let's start with "Who the Fuck cares what the stupid Americans do? This is the WORLD-wide-web. sod off and go invade somebody." Or "This is a goofy wiki. High politics is pretty irrelevant." But I kind of like the "Fuck off, stupid Yank" approach. TheoryOfPractice (talk) 02:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Normally he is called the Vice-President. 02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * @SR - What's wrong with just voting on the number of LJ? This outcome wasn't properly discussed - everyone had different ideas. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:02, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * How about a system like the British House of Lords or the American Democrats Superdelegates, where one elite's vote = 50,000 peons. RobSmithdon't bother me 02:04, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * The House of Lords is different. It acts in a fashion similar to the US senate, so it votes on a bill that has passed the house. By tradition it is the Lords of the Realm and the Bishops of the Church, but these days it is mostly high achievers. 02:26, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * High achievers and party donors. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but having enough money to be a large party donor is an achievement of sorts. 09:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Vote?
I think we're going in circles. I was seriously going to start a vote about whether we should have this vote, and then I realised I might have a problem.

Cast your vote on how many people there should be in the Loya Jirga. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

7 people

 * (Toast, Ace McWicked, Kels, Human, TheoryOfPractice, Genghis Khant, Totnesmartin/Bob M)


 * 1) This is what we have been working towards the whole time. Lets not change the rules after the game is over. 02:29, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Agreed. This is what we aimed for.  Lets have a run off vote for the last position between the two tied nominees, 2 days.   03:53, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) Might as well have a runoff at this point.-- 04:10, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 4) Agree with Pi. If need be, I can drop out and then there's no problem. --Kels (talk) 04:51, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Agreed with Pi. Let's create a section below where people who did not vote for both TM and BM can shift a vote from a losing candidate to one or both of them and whichever of them gets the largest increase is in. Oh, and can someone lock up the voting page or make two archives out of it (one serious, one silly)? signed Ed Poor ;)  07:28, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

8 people

 * (Toast, Ace McWicked, Kels, Human, TheoryOfPractice, Genghis Khant, Totnesmartin, Bob M)


 * 1) Decision-making bodies don't have to be odd numbers. Juries usually aren't.  We can keep seven the preferred number for future Loya Jirgas, but allow eight when votes are tied for seventh place as they are here.   08:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

9 people

 * (Toast, Ace McWicked, Kels, Human, TheoryOfPractice, Genghis Khant, Totnesmartin, Bob M, Armondikov)


 * 1) I vote for 9. We are lucky enough to have people who want to do this, and they have support of tons of RW members, let's keep 'em. <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 02:56, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 2) Just like the Supreme Court. TOP's rabid anti-american douchebaggery/trolling aside, this is just the easiest solution, better than going through another complicated voting system and drawing this out further than necessary.  -- 03:11, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 3) TheoryOfPractice (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2010 (UTC) Was just kidding, Emperor.
 * 4) I like this idea best.  04:33, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 5) Nine is good.  Like the nine ringwraiths and the nine justices of the US Supreme Court.  Very similar.  Corry (talk) 05:14, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 6) Nine for the nine bright shiners. Bob Soles (talk) 14:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

11 people

 * (Toast, Ace McWicked, Kels, Human, TheoryOfPractice, Genghis Khant, Totnesmartin ,Bob M, Armondikov, Mei II, Gooniepunk2010)


 * 1) This includes so many people I like. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * must include Saint Goonie I.

Elimination & redistribution

 * (Votes for lowest candidates sequentially recast until there is a clear seven LJ)


 * 1) Not a bad idea but we should have voted this way to start with. 02:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's an idea!

 * 1) Has anyone actually heard from Bob or Totnesmartin? Acei9 04:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Returning officer
I think we need to elect one. As someone who does not have a lolcat in the fight I volunteer for the position. 02:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Bullshit. -- 04:46, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you even know what one is? 04:49, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

one more thing
I am not tired but I am going to try to sleep now, because I think having been awake for so long is affecting my judgement negatively. I have a sensation that I've forgotten several important things, but I don't know why. Anyway, good night, sort of. I apologize if I made too much of a mess. -- <font color="#000000"> = w =  02:35, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * G'night, Mei!  03:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

As simple solution
I concede to my esteemed colleague Totnesmartin. I wish both him and the project well and watch the experiment with interest.--BobIt's cold! 07:36, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Someone who has the grace and lack of ego to withdraw for the good of the project, to facilitate it moving along and keeping the peace is exactly the kind of person we need in the Loya Jirga. Bob should be included, we should have a total of 9. (I can't believe I feel so strongly about this, but, there it is.) <font color="#000066">Refugee <font color = "#00F0A20">talk page 08:23, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Eight! Seventh place was tied; ninth wasn't.  Allowing both the tied seventh place candidates to serve makes sense, but extending it to nine is moving the goalposts.
 * He has my vote next time, but for now I think we should just say, "Thanks." and go with it.-- 08:24, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much for your support guys but my decision really is final. It is time to move on and do things.  It's also not a decision for all time.--BobIt's cold! 08:47, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
 * No thank you, Bob. 09:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)