RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Results/Archive2

This is an archive page, last updated 6 January 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <3>, <4>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <9>, <13>, <14>, <15>

, (new)(back)

Confused

What do the numbers next to the ballots mean? Just by looking at the results it looks as if 1 was preferred vote for every single ballot. Yet this can't be true because Ace didn't romp in. What is going on? --Damo^Hi 01:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Damn, I thought I had a chance. Ace^ace 01:09, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Its STV, short version is that there is a threshold that has to be met in order to win, if no one has the threshold the lowest vote getter is dropped and their votes transferred to the next preference on the ballot. So while Ace received the most first priority votes it wasn't enough to win, nx and blue dominated the second/third priority spots and that's what won it for them. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

oh shit I fucked up with the paste not the results.

ACE IS STILL NUMBER ONE! Ace^ace 01:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To address the issue the STV format requires a 1 and 0 to surround each ballet, and I forgot to strip those off before pasting them in. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:17, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It still doesn't make sense, it looks like my ballot wasn't counted. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 01:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

In striping off 1 and 0, you also striped off 10. nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 01:22, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fucking hanging chads. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I demand a recount! Ace^ace 01:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The cost of booze will have to be met by your campaign. Tmtoulouse (talk) 01:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

This is an outrage - fucking chads. Ace^ace 01:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Who's Chad? sterile^talk 02:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He is the guy both Trent and I are fucking. Ace^ace 02:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So, is there a reason that some sequences are repeated in the exact same sequence of 2 to16 numbers (1 2 12 9 6 8 14 4 13 16 15 3 5 7 11 10 appears twice) while others appear once (1 6 8 7). Actually, almost all of them are duplicated once. Copy-paste thing? sterile^talk 02:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, copy paste. Also voting with socks. -- Nx / talk 02:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Copy paste on who's part? 1 7 12 4 13 16 appears four times. I obviously didn't win. But, it just seems a bit.... "conicidental." sterile^talk 02:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Trent seems to have borked something when he tried to format the list with regexp. I took the original unformatted list and formatted it manually. Mindless button mashing > regexp. -- Nx / talk 02:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Jesus, just how many socks is Ace running on Rationalwiki? nobs^{abandon hope all ye who enter here.} 02:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

sequences that appear 1 time	8
sequences that appear 2 times	58
sequences that appear 3 times	1
sequences that appear 4 times	1

sterile^talk 02:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fair enough. Just freaky. sterile^talk 02:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Is that for the fixed list I just posted? It looks like Trent accidentally duplicated everything -- Nx / talk 02:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is one duplicate now. (Flog that person with a noodle if it's a sock.) Much better. sterile^talk 02:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Are you seriously telling me that one of the candidates was able to access the ballot boxes? What kind of election is being run here? –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It worked fine with Bush and Condoleeza Rice--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? -- Nx / talk 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

George W. Bush--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There is still some freaky clumpiness:

• 11 16 4 9
• 11 16 4 2
• 1 7 12 4 13 16
• 1 7 12 13 4 16
• 4 5 12 2
• 1 7 12 4 13 16

then:

• 2 11 9 16 4
• 2 16 11 6
• 2 11
• 2 9 11 16

and later:

• 11 4 2 8 13 9 6 14
• 11 4 2
• 11 4 2 8

Just remarking, not accusing. Electoral pareidolia? Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 07:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Some of those are probably socks. There's nothing we can really do about it. I could've voted with Capturebot2, NxBot, and even Ponder Stibbons after an editing spree.

On the other hand, I recognize my vote in there, but I only voted once. So yeah, pareidolia too. -- Nx / talk 07:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What do those numbers mean? Clumpiness?--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:49, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

People have a better idea of what they want in mods now, and some people stood out as exemplars of different approaches. So a lot of people had similar choices, putting those exemplars first and the others last (or only voting for the people they wanted to be mod, rather than bothering with the whole slate).--^talk 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's not just that people make similar choices it's that they choose to do so at the same time as I believe the list is in chronological order. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What? No, no way the list is chronological... really?--^talk 08:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It is. -- Nx / talk 08:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess it's just coincidence, then. I'm sure that the statistical probability of the sequencing could be worked out and would show that it's just our imaginations. But math is scary for me so I won't be doing it. Just weirdness.--^talk 08:06, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There very well could be socks voting. But there is only so much you can do about that on the internet. To limit it we set criteria that makes it difficult to have a lot of eligible socks. But its a balance between that and disenfranchising users that should be allowed to vote. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, given the likely sockiness and the closeness, it's a little disturbing, but I think you're right, there's nothing that can be done. It's hard to say, of course, if it is socks, but it these were by random chance, it wouldn't happen. But it's not random chance. sterile^talk 10:50, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Btw, we should disenfranchise bots. $wgRevokePermissions['bot']['eligible'] = true; -- Nx / talk 10:52, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Without showing their actual votes, is there a way we can get a list of everyone who voted? I know those are public records here in the States. It might make for some interesting reading. DickTurpis (talk) 13:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, it's in the database. -- Nx / talk 18:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Any reason not to make it public? DickTurpis (talk) 04:46, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

I dunno. I think both lists are in chronological order though, so it should be alphabetized. -- Nx / talk 05:58, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh definitely. I don't suppose you have the computer skills to pull off such a monumental task of alphabetizing a list of names, by any chance? DickTurpis (talk) 12:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Kinda defeats the purpose of the secret ballot IMO, but whatever. 12:23, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Secret ballot just means you don't know who anyone voted for. Ascertaining whether someone voted is hunky-dory. Happens all the time in this country. There'll be some small news story that candidate X hasn't voted in any election in 12 years or something. All public records. DickTurpis (talk) 12:34, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok then. 12:35, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Of course, that doesn't necessarily mean there's an expectation that they'll be public here, but I don't think there's an implicit expectation that they won't be. It could answer some questions, and people should have nothing to hide. Should some suspicious voting appear, I wouldn't want to make a fuss over it about this election; what's done is done, and the rules were firmly established. But it might shed some light on whether this method is the best way to go in the future. DickTurpis (talk) 12:41, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Rundown

Can we get a rundown on the results as we saw with the last round? Transparency of that sort goes a long way. DickTurpis (talk) 02:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've posted a properly formatted ballot file here. Just put http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Ballot&oldid=873772&action=raw into https://instantstv.appspot.com/ and select Scottish stv. Note that while Ace McWicked is elected first, in the end he has less votes. I also checked with only two seats - Blue and I win in that case too. You can check that by putting http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=RationalWiki:Moderator_elections/Ballot&oldid=873771&action=raw into the Location box. -- Nx / talk 03:13, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Cretinous incompetent tied Maratrean for last. Blue (pester) 03:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Heh, and Ace is still number one. Ace^ace 03:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but this is clearly wrong. Ace is elected and Nx isn't. The fact that Nx ends up with more votes is not relevant - Ace reached the threshold first and gets elected. That's the way it works. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:05, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Try the version of the ballot file with two seats. -- Nx / talk 07:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well that says Blue and DickTurpis. You still aren't elected. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Did you select Scottish STV? -- Nx / talk 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oops - that had reset. Okay, by carefully picking the data you get your result. So you, a candidate, have placed yourself in charge of generating a dataset that gives you a victory? This is totally out of order. –SuspectedReplicant retire me 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Trent determined the victor. Not Nx--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:16, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

tmt seems to think Nx is elected--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We really should have done run-offs. I can't make heads or tails of that chart I get when I put that thing in that box on that site.--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

WooHoo!

I like these results a lot better than the last ones. Hopefully we'll see some moderation. Flame on--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Wait.. what

Now, in no way is this an attack on Nx, who I think does a great job, but how on earth do we go from "Wah! Nx is teh ebil and abuses his server access!" to electing him a moderator. I'm not arguing against his election, but jesus people, could you be any more inconsistent? Based on this vote, Nx should get his tech rights back. --PsyGremlinTal! 05:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

People behave differently in a ballot-box than they do on a soap-box. ListenerX^TalkerX 05:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

{ec}It was only four people pissing themselves every time Nx breathed too close to the server. Just another case of silent majority--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Honestly, my assessment of his support is his campaign promise to be proactive and "do something." I think that's exactly what a lot of people want. Someone to just step in and say stop it, and if you don't there are consequences. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to quote you every time a RationalWiki reactionary says "that's not what moderators are for!!!!!"

--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, no offense meant, but I think RW has moved past the "Gospel According to Trent" stage. Blue (pester) 05:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I jumped the gun. Trent hasn't endorsed Nx's stance, but he seems open to the people deciding what a moderator does.--User:Brxbrx/sig 05:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I have always been open to letting the users of the site dictate a lot of its management. The only thing I have maintained dictatorial control over is technical and infrastructure issues. That said though I am merely providing my observations of the election as a user and not making any statements or endorsing any position beyond that. Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:37, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

If someone complains that I'm a mod, I can point them to RationalWiki:Moderator elections/Results. What's the procedure for becoming a tech? -- Nx / talk 06:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Basically you ask a mod to make you one. Blue (pester) 11:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I would say that there's a difference between what people say and how people vote. Loud people may seem like the current majority, but they often are not. sterile^talk 10:41, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but there's a plurality. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 10:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace is Elected

Trent, please can you correct this ASAP? Ace is elected, not Nx. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:18, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Not true. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

It's clearly true. The only way Nx got elected is by picking a set of data of his own choosing, after being allowed to access the data set directly before any information was released. UN Election Monitors would be calling this election a farce. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:20, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx never had access to the data. I am the one that decided the election protocol as the judge. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So when Nx says "I took the original unformatted list and formatted it manually.", he's lying? Are you claiming Nx doesn't still have server access? How was he able to create the PHP files? –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:24, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I took the list Trent posted first, before he formatted it. -- Nx / talk 07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

He took it from my original paste in, he does not have server access and he created a page on the wiki. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Duh.--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:26, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, he still isn't elected. We were electing two moderators and a stand by - 3 posts. In that case, Ace still wins. Nx is not elected. Please fix this. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

We were electing 2 posts. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No. Three. I see Nx has noticed this too and is busy trying to hide the data.

This election is flawed, and Nx is NOT ELECTED. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm not trying to hide the data. I just realized that if we run the algorithm for 3 seats, once Ace reaches the threshold he doesn't get any more votes counted for him. So it's actually unfair to him to do it that way. Furthermore, for the first elections alternates were determined in this manner - the counting algorithm was run for 7 seats, then we checked who fell out last. -- Nx / talk 07:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That's the way STV works!!!! When you reach the threshold you don't need any more votes. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

But that's the problem. He needs more votes to determine who will be the alternate - the one with the least votes. -- Nx / talk 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

No. He's elected, whoever is elected third is the third place finisher. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

There are only 2 open positions. I made the decision ahead of time on the method. It is a more accurate representation of the ballots. That's that. I am not changing things. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Then I call fraud. I certainly don't accept your judgement. Ace is elected, Nx isn't. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace was the first to secure himself a spot among the three winners, but that doesn't matter here. We didn't select three moderators, but two and a stand-in, so we need to somehow discriminate among the winners. The only way to do that is by total votes at the end, and here, Nx and Blue win out with 17 each vs. Ace's 16 - unless I've misunderstood something about the process. Röstigraben (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To do it that way is to create some bizarre hybrid of STV and First Past the Post. You simply elect three people. The first two are moderators, the third is the stand-by. –SuspectedReplicant Condemn electoral fraud - Don't let candidates count the votes 07:38, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, but you're arguing that Ace should be elected because he was First Past the Post. -- Nx / talk 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah... Anyways, next time before we call the site's founder a fraud, maybe we could do a simple run off thing, with rounds and all?--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:36, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ace has only 16 votes in the end because once he reaches the threshold the algorithm stops counting votes for him. That was my mistake in creating the ballot file with 3 seats. Ace has a lot of #1 votes, so he reaches the threshold first. But Blue and I have more #2 and #3 votes, which outweigh Ace's #1 votes in the end - that's why we win if you run the algorithm with 2 seats. -- Nx / talk 07:40, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I think I understand much better, now. Thanks. Hopefully SR will follow suit. Of course, I still think we should adopt a simpler system.--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:43, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - you win if you get to select the counting method. I admit that if you commit electoral fraud, you win. Bricks, let the grownups deal with this, please. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 07:44, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The counting method was determined beforehand. Now quit whining like a baby--User:Brxbrx/sig 07:46, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx had absolutely zero to do with the voting method or any decisions with voting. Continued accusations like that are disingenuous in the extreme. You have a preferred outcome and have chosen a specific method of counting votes post-facto that gives the results you want. I didn't care who won and choose a method before counting. I am the election judge, you aren't. QED. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:47, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Fraud. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 07:48, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So Nx isn't a mod because he had access to the server. No, wait, he isn't a mod because he tampered with the dataset. No, wait, he isn't a mod because STV results in Ace winning. No, wait, he isn't a mod because... goddamnit Nx isn't a mod this is bullshit and graaaannnngh

It is clear that there is some reason that Nx isn't a mod, and we will find it no matter how many theories it takes. Did Nx hack the server? Did Nx tamper with the electorate? Is Nx in Trent's apartment right now, holding a knife to his throat? Confess!--^talk 07:55, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Nx seems to have picked the data to suit himself, and picked the counting system to suit himself. These elections are a total farce. Nx is not a moderator. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 07:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Your just lying at this point. As has been explained to you repeatedly nx has NOTHING to do with the ballots or counting method. What small amount of credibility you had is out the window. Tmtoulouse (talk) 07:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Right. Whatever you say. It's clear you're lacking objectivity here. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:01, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Uh, is that clear? I guess he is prejudiced towards not being a ridiculous shrieking baby. Outrageous bigotry on his part.--^talk 08:02, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I made the mistake of assuming how Trent counted the votes and then reading the not-even-wrong results, and then acting like I knew what I was talking about above. I am to blame for the confusion. I apologize for that. -- Nx / talk 08:03, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

SR, if you're really worried, then just take the dataset posted by Trent, and then manually work it out yourself.--^talk 08:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

@AD. I took the file and put them into the website as advised above. Whilst I accept Trents honesty and accept the result, it does clearly say that Ace was elected first. Now I accept that there are reasons for saying that actually Nx and Blue were the legitimate winners but I don't know why. Perhaps someone could explain why this is so and then we can put this behind us.--Damo^Hi 08:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

To my understanding, if you run the election with two openings then Nx and Blue win, because their numerous second and third-place votes outweigh Ace's under the rules of Scottish STV. Seems reasonable to me, and it's why they win.--^talk 08:25, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, and if we run the algorithm for three seats then Ace reaches the threshold first because he has the most #1 votes, and SR believes he should be the moderator because of this. -- Nx / talk 08:28, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess RW will have it's own one-man birther cheater movement from now on… --★uːʤɱ secularist 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I've done that. The results are pretty clear - Ace is elected. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Oh, cool. Can I see your work? Maybe I don't understand the issue here.--^talk 08:11, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

That online site is actually pretty good for that. It gets the same results as me - at least, once I'd fixed a small error in my attempt it does. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:14, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Okay. So... can I see your results then?--^talk 08:15, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Here. Sorry that took a while, my scanner decided not to work today so you get a shitty digital photo instead. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Seems to match. So I assume you are withdrawing your accusations of tampering with the data and are only arguing over interpretation of the results?--^talk 09:21, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Actually, since Nx had server access for most of the time during the elections, and since it seems to have been Nx who "interpreted" the original data as posted by Trent, I'm withdrawing nothing. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

What next? I know - Nx is a Muslim.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 11:58, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Or worse... a maratreanist. Ponder Stibbons (talk) 12:07, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Explanation edit break

There still seems to be some confusion. The only conditions under which ace "wins" is if you set the number of positions to 3. The reason this works it that the more candidates you have the lower the threshold needed to win. Ace "wins" under this scenario because it dilutes the number of first and second choice votes that are counted. Basically he has just barely enough first place votes to win in an inflated number of candidates scenario.

The fact is that this election was run for 2 positions, an alternate is not a position, setting the positions to 3 is an invalid approach to the election and dilutes voter preference. I made the decision before any ballots were casts on how the counting would proceed. I don't care who wins. SR has a very biased position on this and has selected a ridiculous methodology for counting votes. I am just not wasting any more time on this. Tmtoulouse (talk) 08:29, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I was going to post a similar comment to what Trent has just said and give him my support in this. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 08:31, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Ok fair enough. Makes sense to me. Damo^Hi 08:39, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Or if you don't set a limit. Ace wins then, too. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:57, 20 September 2011 (UTC) WTF was I thinking here???

We were electing two moderators and a stand-by. That's three positions, hence Ace is elected and Nx is NOT. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 08:59, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. So if you set the number of available positions to two (which is the reality) then Nx and Blue win. If you set it to three then, somewhat unsurprisingly, you have three winners. I must admit that it is a little surprising that Ace would win "first" in the three position scenario, but if that's how the system works then so be it.--Bob^{Spring is sprung!} 09:08, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

The STV system elects people by the first to pace a threshold because it assumes that all the positions its filling are on equal footing. But when the three positions are not on equal footing the method doesn't make any sense. Your trying to do something with it that it was not designed to do and getting invalid results, then trying to claim they are correct. Tmtoulouse (talk) 09:10, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I appreciate your zeal SR, I don't think it really matters anyway. Ace^ace 09:23, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

While I commiserate with Ace, we were electing 2 moderators first and a standby second. The three positions were not equal so the moderator positions are filled first. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 09:27, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Well, as far as I can see, this is done. Nothing's going to move SR, but he's the only one complaining. Congratulations to Nx and Blue, and to Ace. Finis.--^talk 09:32, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

I aint complaining, roll on RW. Ace^ace 09:33, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

So having taken several attempts to get the data set right, and two attempts at picking an electoral system, Trent and AD get the result they wanted. We needn't have bothered with the election really. –SuspectedReplicant Support democracy - Ace is the REAL moderator 09:34, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Sieg Heil --10:04, 20 September 2011 (UTC)

Suggestion: Next time

Maybe if less than half a moderator's term is left when the next mod up and quits (Yay SARAH!) maybe the office (such as it is) should be made by appointment. Offered to someone to fill out the remaining time left. I dunno. Oh, I didn't wote on this this time. 23:30, 20 September 2011 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

You know, I do believe that is what the standby is for. Генгис^{You have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.} 13:31, 21 September 2011 (UTC)