Forum talk:Moderator elections and sock puppets

delete or move as ye wish
I am barely following the forum topic.

Some thoughts:
 * Perhaps known socks' votes could be weighted differently?
 * Perhaps a system that throws out the TOP vote getters and the bottom vote getters? (Dont they do something like this in Olympic scoring....gymnasts perhaps?)
 * It is a popularity contest since the job, such as it is, is so ill-defined as no-one knows who would be good at it, though one can guess who would be less BAD.
 * A public vote would cause more dissatisfaction.
 * Have a "rolling brown-out" of democracy...only 30% of all users would be enfranchised in a given election cycle.
 * 1) I would try (for, oh, say, 6 months) appointing mods.
 * 2) While techinically everyone would be eligible those who seek the office would be eschewed for less amibitious "candidates".
 * 3) Complaints against current mods would weigh against the complainer for future vacancies.
 * 4) Complaints about heavy-handedness would count doubly negative.

I cobbled this together on the fly and it's more brain-drizzling than anything...if all this matters to you so much that it is consuming a lot of your day, then perhaps it is time to take in a game of nine-pins? Nothing puts things into better perspective than simple (and violent) physics...knowing that even at your bestest you're not bloody likely to get that 300 game.

A project such as this will score 280 only occasionally, with the average being at about 145.

21:05, 6 July 2012 (UTC) C ® ackeЯ