RationalWiki talk:May 2010 Loya Jirga by-elections

Aren't we missing someone else, too? Can the active Lackadaisical Jumbles sign in so we can see? Me makes one. ħuman 01:08, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't know who else is missing. Totnes mentioned that one or two others had stepped down, but he didn't say which ones. And the Elections to the Loya Jirga page doesn't say anything about others resigning. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:12, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You should probably put this under RationalWiki:Elections to the Loya Jirga when you're done, to keep everything in one place. Also someone needs to update RW:LJ -- Nx / talk 01:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

@RA, that's why I asked for us to chime in and say hello. ħuman 01:37, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So... do you have like a super-seekrit channel for contacting the other members? "Loya Jirga, assemble! Your wiki needs you!" : ) Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think we even have an intercom channel. Can someone who cares list The Nine here so we can hassle them individually to pop up and say "goat"? ħuman 01:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ace McWicked, Bob M, Human, Kels, TheoryOfPractice, Toast, and Totnesmartin. Genghis Khant was a member before he resigned and was replaced by Bob. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 01:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm pesterin' them right now. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 02:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I continue to exist, and will hollar if poked. That's the minimum requirement, yes? --Kels (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, there's only seven. Forgive me for forgetting my Lumbar Joints. ħuman 02:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. What are the rules of this vote? Is it vote for one candidate only this time? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Also, how to distinguish between votes and comments? ħuman 07:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Presumably, the same system as last time: one vote for each open seat on the Loya Jirga. So that's one vote per person so far, maybe more if others say they're retiring as well. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's not what I asked. I mean, are "numbers" votes and "asterisks" just comments? ħuman 07:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

That's's as good a system as any. But then there are the are people who just forget to use # and use * out of habit >__<

Oh and sorry about that—that was me; I couldn't tell if you were commenting or voting. Mind if I bold the word "note" so no one else makes the same mistake? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 07:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Feel free to create a convention everyone can follow. I'm not sure, for instance, if the Weaseloid people are voting or commenting. You might want to say "this is the nomination stage" or sumthin? Tell people to use bolded "yea" to actually vote? ħuman 07:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, we seem to have our usual chaotic system in place. Perhaps a better idea would be to:

• Confirm the number of vacancies.
• Call for nominations.
• Vote.

But I see that we are following our usual procedure of doing it all at the same time.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 08:21, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Um... sorry? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

LJ members' goat call - Please write "goat" and your name

• Goat.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Ostrich, errrr, goat.-- Aceⁱ⁹ 05:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Emu. ħuman 07:20, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• 07:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}
• I continue to exist, and will hollar if poked. That's the minimum requirement, yes? --Kels (talk) 02:07, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Amoeba. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)
• Boat. P-Foster (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Votes versus comments

How are we to tell them apart. Someone keeps changing my * to # so fuck off. Are numbers votes? Are asterisks comments? How can we tell votes apart from comments? ħuman 07:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Comment like this if you want to comment

1. like this if you're casting a vote. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

But that is not what it has said so far. Poorly set up election in my opinion. Nominations, comments, and votes can't be told apart. ħuman 08:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

So what's new? Totnesmartin (talk) 08:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'll pop the following comment on the talk pages of everyone who's voted. That should help clarify the existing votes:

Ello there. You voted in the famous Lumpy Jerboa bi-election, but there's some confusion as to who voted and who just commented. If you only intended to comment, can you modify your post on the RationalWiki:May 2010 Loya Jirga by-elections by adding a strikethrough tag to it? e.g.

<s>My earlier comment</s>

You can leave your post as is if you were actually voting.

ConcernedResident ^{bat for the ladies} 09:04, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

seeing as my entire text went "# ~~~~", which part should I cross though? Totnesmartin (talk) 09:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, it may be worth adding some text for the sake of having something to strike through, or prefix it with '''comment'''. I saw someone else doing that and it seems a pretty clear way of doing it. --ConcernedResident ^{brand for the ladies} 09:40, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The Chiltern Hundreds

Apparently need to confirm that I am in fact leaving the Loya Jirga, so hereto and bywhichfor I thus enable pro tem said quality of being. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm afraid I don't understand legalese. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 08:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Consider valid my application for Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Totnesmartin (talk) 08:59, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Curse you and your British legal references. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 09:17, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

If only there was one beginning with D. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:22, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Heh heh, that is an amazing hack. Nice to know that the British parliamentary system is run the same way I write code. --ConcernedResident ^{pastry for the ladies} 09:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Our glorious constitution: a thousand years of making shit up as we go along. Totnesmartin (talk) 09:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Number of votes?

Crundy raised a good question there about the number of votes? Somewhere between one and three votes? I think that's how we did it in the original Leprous Pringle election. --ConcernedResident ^{garbage bin for the ladies} 14:43, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Three votes seems good to me. That way, it's sort of like an instant runoff voting system. Lord Goonie ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 14:45, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Three works for me. Got a couple of other people I'd like to chuck votes at. --ConcernedResident ^{xylophone for the ladies} 14:47, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Last time I think you had seven votes because there were seven positions to fill, or something like that. So now you should have only one. -- Nx / talk 14:49, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Ah, that's true. Forgot about that. --ConcernedResident ^{tree for the ladies} 15:00, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, but I still like 3 for the number so that we, again, have more of an IRV system. But, that's just my opinion. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 15:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This is absurd. There is one position to fill - as far as I can tell from the chaos above. The logical thing would be for each person to vote once. But I see people giving between one and three votes. This can't be instant run-off voting as in that case (a) people would have an agreed number of votes and (b) they would indicate the priority of their votes. Secondly it might be a good idea to confirm there are no more nominations before actually voting. Personally I think we should start again.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 15:31, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

In truth, I'm inclined to agree with Bob M here. We never made sure we had a final list of candidates, and we never set ground rules for voting. It wouldn't take much to start over with set rules for voting and with a solid ballot. The Goonie Punk ^{Can't sleep, clowns will eat me!} 15:48, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Meh, we should just give the position to RA and be done with it. -- Nx / talk 15:53, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

(unindent) What the fuck for? He doesn't even have a majority of the votes? The Goonie 1 ^{What's this button do? Uh oh....} 15:55, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Because he's the only one who cares. -- Nx / talk 16:01, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

While I'm sure that RA is a very valid candidate, I'm not sure that a discussion amongst a handful of people on a talk page would be the best or most legitimate way to allow his entry in the august body. I'm also not totally convinced that such a decision would be accepted by the great mass of the people whom we aim to serve.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 16:24, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I thought this was a full re-election of the seven. I'm not completely with it today. Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 15:56, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

RA is good, but I'd vote for Weaseloid. I'm not a crat, so anyone voting me should probably shift votes elsewhere or we end in an odd situation. I'd vote for Goonie or Weasel personally. Weasel's a smart and decent chap, and I've yet to see him explode in a bout of craziness and knives. --ConcernedResident ^{asparagus for the ladies} 16:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Election timescale?

Are we running this for a week? Some other length of time? Until there's a clear majority? Until we lose interest? Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 17:16, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes. ħuman 19:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

The main election ran for a week, so maybe this one should too. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:03, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, at least one full week after the nominations are closed. I think they should be open for one week, too, so total two weeks from the start of discussion? ħuman 00:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think nominations really close, but late nominees are likely to be disadvantaged. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:38, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I think they should, although of course this page was created with no structure or instructions. One week for nominating on page and bitching and moaning on talk page, then one week for voting and more bitching and moaning on talk page. ħuman 02:34, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Please don't vote for me

I have no interest in joining the Loose Jumbles, and would prefer that those who voted for me vote for someone else. The Spikey Punk ^{I'm punking my punk!} 22:34, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

You may want to clear that up on the voting page. Maybe cross out your name and post "I'm not interested" below it? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 22:38, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Had a good Laugh at this.

This was posted here by someone and promptly deleted. I think it is a RW policy not to delete talk page comments unless they are wholly offensive and devoid of any content (and even then we remove talk page comments sparingly).

- π 01:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

I didn't bother to read any of the posts (bullshit), but I think I can summarise what happened here;

-

- A) A vacancy emerged in the 'Loya Jirga'

- B) Some internet geeks got excited.(yup, you MC)

- C) Some epic internet geeks jumped at the opportunity to elevate themselves to positions of authority, all the while maintaining a visibly absurd aura of non chalance and disinterestedness.

- D) Many internet geeks like to maintain that this 'is only a bit of fun', while in reality it would fulfill their sad and depressing lives for a glimpse of a moment, making all those pointless hours fixing templates for a wiki full of idiots and losers and children worthwhile.

- E) Some of the more blatant deceitful geeks would maintain that they never wanted to be in the loya jirga in the first place, and ask those who voted for them to withdraw their vote and pass it on to someone else, who they're sure would do a much better job than they. Nice and convenient that they make this request as soon as they realise they stand no chance of winning election.

-

- End result? A few internet geeks (Like you, MC) have something to look forward to other than hardcore pornography for the day. They wank themselves off relentlessly on a 3 hour binge to celebrate. They finish that off with yet another tub of Ben and Jerrys before rubbing the residual ice cream over themselves on their fat, grotesque naked bodies, masturbating in their own swine like filth.

-

- I am truly pathetic. Contrary (talk) 22:38, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

- π 01:30, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

That was funny. I unsmalled it a whole bunch. ħuman 02:31, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

Taking into account the "unsmalled" bits, that is hilarious (and truly ironic). ^moral 10:18, 15 May 2010 (UTC)

P-foster still missing

Could someone email P-foster so he can holler "goat" in the above section for us? Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:40, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Whoops! Nevermind. I must've missed when he reported in. Radioactive afikomen ^{Please ignore all my awful pre-2014 comments.} 21:41, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Seven days nearly up

In seven hours time, it will have been a week since the election page was created & voting started. Voter turnout so far has been less than enthusiastic. So what do we do?

• Close voting at 2am GMT/UTC tonight, the 7-day mark, & go with what we've got, even if it's only a handful of votes?
• Add a couple of days, agree a closing time (e.g. sometime this weekend) & announce over intercom so anyone who might care still has a chance to vote?
• Shelve this due to lack of interest & let Martin nominate his replacement?
• Something else?

Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 18:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

don't worry, hundreds of students will turn up at the last minute and then moan they didn't have time to vote. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

but seriously folks, there are votes:Concernedresident 6, Weaseloid 5, a bunch of other guys 1 or 2 each. Looks like a vote to me. Totnesmartin (talk) 19:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

See above, I argue for 7 days for nominations, followed by 7 days for voting. Given the title "May 2010" I'd even say, let it run til the end of the month. But thanks for reminding me to !vote. ħuman 02:27, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

End of the month sounds fair. It's not as if we're going to resort to cannibalism and astrology while we wait for it to be decided. --ConcernedResident ^{dollhouse, for the ladies} 11:37, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

OK by me. I voted in a panic a day or two ago because I was afraid the polls would close on my ankle. ħuman 02:42, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

So who won?

So who won? 82.153.251.65 (talk) (totnesmartin in the library with the lead piping 13:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

ConcernedResident, by the looks of things. But what we all need to remember is that, in by-elections, there are no winners, only losers. MARCVS ANTONIVS 13:59, 2 June 2010 (UTC)