Forum talk:Moderator elections and sock puppets

Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain

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.
   1. 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