RationalWiki talk:Moderator elections/Results/Archive4

This is an archive page, last updated 31 December 2012. Please do not make edits to this page.

Archives for this talk page:

<1>, <2>, <3>, <5>, <6>, <7>, <9>, <13>, <14>

, (new)(back)

Raw data mismatch

Trent - just an observation, For 74 ballots there are only 72 lines of ballot data. VOX^HUMANA 03:39, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

There could have been blank ballots. My other enfranchised account cast one in the last election to test whether it was possible, and apparently it was. DickTurpis (talk) 03:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you vote twice? 06:22, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

In the previous election I voted with this one, and cast an empty ballot with another, just to settle a discussion as to whether it was possible to do so. If that counts as "voting twice" then I guess I did. I'll gladly renounce and void my second ballot. DickTurpis (talk) 06:29, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Nevermind. Just read the part about non-empty. DickTurpis (talk) 03:41, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

C&P error. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Meh, no drama . Thanks for the fix. VOX^HUMANA 03:48, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Are they supposed to end with '0'? Peter ^HFB2 03:50, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

No those are markers for the vote program. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Two votes of zero

Sorry to keep hassling you Trent, but the final two ballots have a zero in them for their final rank. Is this just an artifact? VOX^HUMANA 03:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

They are markers for the vote program didn't get stripped right. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:52, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(ec) - not a problem. Thanks again :) VOX^HUMANA 03:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you sure they're 0 and not o?--User:Brxbrx/sig 03:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Just out of curiosity, is there any meaning to the order of the raw ballots? I sort of thought in the past they were chronological, but I'm doubting they are this time as I found my vote near the bottom, even though I'm pretty sure I voted shortly after polls opened. DickTurpis (talk) 03:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

The output generator does a rand sort on them now. Tmtoulouse (talk) 03:56, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

This result shows that there are too many mod positions

I roughly counted 33 of the 74 ballots that cast fewer than 9 votes each. In other words of those who cared enough to vote, almost half could not choose 9 suitable mods from the candidates. Ergo, you have too many mods. Try a negative vote next time, to establish those who people positively desire to not be mods. LowKey (talk) 05:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessarily read the results that way. I voted for less than 9, not because I couldn't find 9 suitable candidates, but largely because it appears to me, at least, that any choice beyond 5 or so isn't going to matter anyway (unless your first several votes are for long shots who don't make the cut). I'm still somewhat confused by the entire process, but I think no vote of mine but my first mattered anyway. DickTurpis (talk) 05:36, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Also this isn't a preferential vote, it's a single transferable. Hence there really is no requirement to cast more than one vote. There is an advantage to casting more than one vote if you think there is a chance your original vote will not be used (eg. you vote for a candidate likely to make quota in the first round). In my analysis of the previous (Jan 2012) election the lowest preference ever used was 7th, and most never got deeper than 3. Hence voting beyond that depth is (at best) symbolic. VOX^HUMANA 05:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC)Yeah, there's no actual point in voting even for 9 people. That doesn't nessisarily mean that there aren't too many mods, but this is not how you'd know. Peter ^HFB2 05:40, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Completely irrelevant, but just for the record, the average ballot included 10.04 ranking votes. VOX^HUMANA 05:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC)What is this "average" of which you speak? Do you mean "mean"? The median would also be informative. LowKey (talk) 06:06, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was careless data programming speak. The SQL code is AVG, even though strictly it is the mean, (as you correctly point out). The median is 6. VOX^HUMANA 06:18, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Ta for that. Pet quibble of mine. I think my initial point was wrong, but this does highlight a weakness/flaw in STV for this. The order in which votes are counted effects which of one's vote is counted. It's a similar problem to that with optional preferential - although in reverse. In STV one's vote is wasted if one's preferred candidate is elected and one has not made further selections while in optional preferential one's vote is wasted if one's preferred candidate is eliminated and one has not made further selections. Flipism would be almost as robust and much quicker. Or trial by ordeal, which would be funner (well, not for the candidates). LowKey (talk) 08:21, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Lowkey, I think you are not fully understanding how it works. There is a minimum threshold for election which is total number of voters/positions vacant rounded up the nearest integer. Those that pass that threshold are automatically elected and their surplus votes redistributed. For example, AD had 13 votes but only needed 8, leaving five spare. So 5/13 of a vote was given to everyone who was a second choice to AD. The same applies to all the other first round winners. If someone else now has enough votes then they are elected and their surplus votes redistributed pro rata. Starting with the lowest ranked candidate second place votes are then redistributed until someone else meets the threshold. It gets a little more complicated because they may be for someone who has already been elected, in which case the first none elected candidate in their list gets the vote. The only time that order of counting is important comes when there is a tie between two people with the same number of votes and their votes are redistributed on a random choice of who goes first. In round 5 Kels and LArron had the same number of votes but her votes were redistributed first based on a random selection. It might be interesting for someone to compare the outcome if LArron's votes had been redistributed first. As for your vote being wasted if your preference is elected, well your guy is elected so you can't quibble and if you haven't made further selections then you are effectively saying that you don't care who else is elected. The fact that you voted for them actually gives them a greater number of votes to be redistributed so your vote carries some weight but you have not chosen how it should be used. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 10:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Trial by ordeal, hmmm... make candidates read all of Time Cube, anyone not reduced to a gibbering wreck is disqualified duly elected. I like this idea. Sophie^{because liberals} 08:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

We can use reading The Eye of Argon as a tiebreaker. VOX^HUMANA 09:51, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I got to the end of Time Cube (where do you think the serious analysis came from?), couldn't get beyond chapter 2 of Eye of Argon, though. ^narchist 11:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Any number of moderators > 0 is too many. rpeh •T•C•E• 06:03, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Any discussion of how many mods there should be ought to be based on what they do, not how people vote. Personally, I think there should be more, not fewer of them. I had no problems with the old Bureaucrat system, where most established & trusted editors had senior admin abilities. Wẽãšẽĩõĩď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 06:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Weaseloid. I always thought there should be more moderators. If someone wants to help the wiki by volunteering to help out in various ways, why say no? Add a few more. Refugee^{talk page} 23:28, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the vermin, but in another way. The "mod" position is an ego-fuelled joke. I was one for six months, I got hate mail from Blue "welcoming" me, there is no mailing list, and when things are being "moderated" at "all things in moderation", no one tells the rest of the mods it is happening. An embarrassment all around. Can anyone cite even ONE example of the "mods" doing anything useful here? Trent's experiment in "giving the people what they want" has been interesting, but fruitless in terms of what "the people (who desperately need authority over/under themselves)" wanted has pretty much shown how positions of authority work: those who want power, however circumscribed, want power. Those who need "rules" enable them. Very interesting all around. ħuman 03:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Woo-hoo

I got to 2 1/2 votes this time. Next time, I'm shooting for three. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:44, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

You were one of my top 4 dude....and you'll always be top 4 in my heart....after wife, Nutty and Human. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 12:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Aw..... sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 13:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I guess I need to be someone's top 1 or maybe 2. Gotta suck up to Voxhumie more, I guess. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 20:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I heard Vox likes posters...you should post some on his wall.Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 22:16, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised that some people decided to stand but didn't even bother to vote for themselves as first choice. I think that's taking the modesty thing too far and it would have been better if there were fewer candidates in the first place. Oh well. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 14:56, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Well mine was a practice run really, I'd have been surprised to get in. I have a better picture of what I need to do next time. My top vote was for Ace. Sophie^{because liberals} 09:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see Sterile on the Board, not this useless circle jerk. ħuman 03:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I think I'd rather be on the board, too. This isn't worth it. sterile^{sporadic heavy hitter} 12:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Why is number of seats 9?

The results on this page are for 9 seats, not 7. If I remember correctly, when I was first elected and Ace became an alternate, there was a dispute over the voting method, and there we established that who becomes elected and who is an alternate is determined by running the election for the number of actual seats, not including the alternates. -- Nx / talk 13:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

How would alternates be selected then? Wėąṣėḷőįď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 14:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's the last two to fall out, though that's probably not entirely fair. STV is designed for x number of identical seats. You can read Trent's explanation here -- Nx / talk 14:39, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Or the number of remaining votes or something. -- Nx / talk 14:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Line 18 of the table says "Candidates DickTurpis and WaitingforGodot have reached the threshold and are elected. Candidates Armondikov and Weaseloid are elected." Vote transferring seems to have stopped after 7 candidates met the threshold, and the two alternates were picked by highest vote count at that stage rather than further eliminations & transfers. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:18, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Scratch that. There was nobody else to eliminate at that stage of the calculations. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

You need to rerun the calculation for 7 seats. -- Nx / talk 15:22, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Would the results be different? Wěǎšěǐǒǐď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. -- Nx / talk 19:44, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Really? Or do you just mean that the calculations would be different even though they might actually return the same names. Unless you've actually done the maths we don't know if it would affect the outcome. Anyway you are right, it should be rerun with 7 positions. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 20:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I've rerun it with 7 seats. -- Nx / talk 20:40, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

So either post your findings or shut up about it. Don't keep nagging users to do calculations you've already done. & While you're at it, why not also tell us what the results would look like with your sock votes discounted. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 21:02, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Very well. Ace McWicked, AD, Armondikov, Blue, Genghis Khant, WaitingforGodot and Weaseloid. Alternates are, assuming I'm reading it right, Human and Reckless Noise Symphony.

The reason DickTurpis is eliminated is that in the 9 seats scenario, he gets a lot of surplus votes from others who don't need them because the threshold is lower. With 7 seats, the threshold is higher, and other, higher ranked candidates need those votes.

For the same reason Nutty Roux is eliminated earlier, as he doesn't get votes from Ace (who doesn't pass the higher threshold in the first round), and, as a result, Human gets his surplus votes, preventing him from being eliminated until the last round.

At least that's how I understand it.

As for removing my sock votes... no. They were eligible. -- Nx / talk 21:28, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Are you admitting your socks voted? or just being flippant?GodotStop the damn screeds! 21:33, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Already did. -- Nx / talk 21:36, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

They were "eligible" in that the voting system did not prevent them from voting. I'd like to see how you can use the actual voting rules to justify that. DickTurpis (talk) 15:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What rules? The only rule is the eligibility criteria. When I brought this up six months ago, the response was "meh, who cares, it's no big deal". I even warned you that I was considering doing this. -- Nx / talk 19:54, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Surely the calculations used here are the same process as in the December elections, when we were also electing 7 mods & 2 alts. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 20:27, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Trent really needs to comment on this. Генгис^{RationalWiki GOLD member} 21:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Damn right he does. Trent needs to apologise to me when I called him out on this bullshit two elections ago. He picks and chooses the rules to suit himself and has now violated any possible interpretation of those rules by looking at the names of those who voted. He is absolutely unfit for any role in any future election. rpeh •T•C•E• 22:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't think the guy monitoring the rats is supposed to give them hints, clues or other helps besides maybe thumping the walls of the maze to wake em up. 16:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC) C®ackeЯ

Cracker gets it. Trent is a psych PhD student who studies how learning is mediated by risk/reward. ... 14:34, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

This is fairly important. If Nx's calculations based on 7+2 rather than 9 are correct then we have two different winners. If I'm not mistaken, the first election was based on 7 seats, but can anyone confirm that the second full election was also based on 7 seats rather than 9? Blue (pester) 22:58, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't know how the alternates were determined, but it was definitely not run for 9 seats, because then the alternates would be wrong. For 7 seats, the result is correct, but Pi and Ty should be alternates, not Pi and Lx. However, this could be down to randomness, as Lx was chosen randomly to break the tie in elimination. -- Nx / talk 23:15, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Did I run? I'll take one of the alternate spots. My platform was very popular in previous elections. Cretinous incompetent (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

See for yourself

Here's the ballot file formatted for OpenSTV (each line starts with a 1 and ends with a 0, 21 7 in the first line is the number of candidates and the number of seats, the line with a single 0 marks the end of the ballots, after that go the 21 names so the result is formatted nicely, plus the title of the election)

Go to https://instantstv.appspot.com/, put http://rationalwiki.org/w/index.php?title=User:Nx/mod2012july&action=raw into the Location box, and select Scottish STV.

-- Nx / talk 23:25, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks very convincing to me. I hope Trent comments on this sometime soon. Blue (pester) 23:57, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

My comment "I don't give a fuck do whatever you want". Tmtoulouse (talk) 05:15, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Succinct and to the point. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 05:19, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure this sucks for him, because he ends up being responsible for it all, and he has a big crew of opinionated and outspoken folks all looking over his shoulder.

So we're in a rough spot here, and have to decide what we want to do. Is it correct to say that this time the counting was done slightly differently, and so the results were slightly different? what exactly would the results have been if the method had been done as it was last time?--^talk 08:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

You can follow Nx's instructions and look at the calculations, or just look at the section above this one. wo mods and the alternates are incorrect under the current result. Blue (pester) 09:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

From my hurried reading: yes and no, they were done the same as last time but different from the time before; hence 'the same as reported by tmt' to your second question, but different if done via the (hotly-contested) system used for the by-election in September. Peter ^HFB2 09:05, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

No, I'm pretty sure last time they were done for 7 seats. -- Nx / talk 19:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, inconsistency is undesirable, but not inherently broken. We just need to clear up this ambiguity so that everyone knows exactly how things will go down in the future.

Does it make a difference in "fairness" whether votes are counted 7+2 or 9, or is it arbitrary? If the latter, let's just pick one and say "This is how it will be done in the future."--^talk 09:09, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Pretty sure it's arbitrary. It was claimed back in September that because we are electing 7 moderators, we should put "7" into the machine. Also I think we have an issue where under one system the first to pass the threshold gets in, while under the other a person getting more votes later on could displace them? I don't know, why am I commenting..? Peter ^HFB2 09:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not arbitrary, it's always been 7 seats. The results change depending on how many seats are used. We hashed this out last year. Blue (is useful) 09:18, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I was asking if there is any difference in fairness of representation in 7+2 or 9. Is one way of doing it better than the other, or is it arbitrary? Yes, the results change. But is it for the better or for the worse, or neither? I don't know the statistics of it all, but from what I can tell neither system is more fair than the other.--^talk 09:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Looking at all the calculations, Nx is correct. I am to be an alternate and, as such, I have willingly accepted this new position in lieu of "moderator". Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It is strongly preferred that the algorithm used to determine election results is open sourced and very explicit. In this case, this includes exactly the input given to the software. I'm sorry that I can't parse this controversy as well as I might like, but if this wasn't explicitly stated somewhere (which number was going to be used as input), then that was a serious oversight. Irrespective of which we decide to be more "fair" between 7 and 9, I argue that we shouldn't change the rules after ballots were cast because that would be even worse. If it wasn't explicitly stated which of 7 or 9 was to be used as input to the software, then I'd favor revote as the sensible approach. (Also, just because I saw "fairness" mentioned, I have to link to it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow%27s_impossibility_theorem ) LiberalOfAnUnknownVariant (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

If we consider both readings equally valid . . .

Now that we've seen two ways of calculating the results, picking one over the other isn't going to be very satisfactory. And resitting the whole election, while arguably the fairest thing to do at this point, probably isn't what anybody wants either.

But if we consider both readings (the published results and Nx's calculated results posted above) as equally valid, we can rank the candidates as follows:

Ace, AD, Blue, Genghis and WaitingforGodot were voted in according to both sets of results, so these five are obviously confirmed as mods.

Armondikov ranks next highest, as he was voted moderator according to one reading and first alternate according to the other, so he takes up the sixth place as a mod.

Reckless Noise Symphony and I rank next as we were both voted mod according to one reading and second alt according to the other.

DickTurpis ranks below as he was voted mod according to one reading, and nothing according to the other.

Human was voted an alternate on one and nothing on the other.

So we're left with the question of how to determine the seventh mod position and the alternates. Either we have some sort of vote-off between Reckless Noise Symphony and me, with the winner becoming mod and the loser becoming first alternate (with DickTurpis as second alternate), or we just keep eight mods instead of seven for the next few months, with Dick as first alternate and Human as second alternate. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 12:56, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I've got an easier solution: I hereby concede and make Weaseloid the 7th moderator. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 12:59, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate that, Reckless. But let's wait to see what other users think before making any changes. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

This whole hoo-ha shows that this current system clearly doesn't work. Most people don't understand how it works, it doesn't appear to deliver consistent results and we've already seen a case where a candidate received more - and higher average - votes than somebody who beat him, merely because that person happened to have 2 or 3 first place votes.

We're clearly far too small a group to be using this system. Why not just give everybody 3 votes each and leave it at that. Count up the votes and the first 7 get in. plain and simple, no arguments. --PsyGremlinPraat! 14:38, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

How we handle mod votes in future is a separate issue. What is most pressing is what we do now. Either we consider the recent election void, and vote all over again according to some other system, or we agree a way of deriving results from the ballots that were cast. That's what I'm trying to do by suggesting a synthesis of both interpretations of the STV system. Ŵêâŝêîôîď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 15:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What we "do now" doesn't matter, since the mod system is a joke. A joke played on the authoritarians by Trent. Do you people even follow the story of this place? ħuman 03:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Butthurt much, because your sock votes didn't get you in this time, you grumpy old fuck? --PsyGremlinПоговорите! 12:06, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Take it easy guys. I tried to broker some peace here because you're both my friends and this got turned up to 11 for such stupid reasons, but I failed. Anyhow, I have no idea if Trent will ever reveal who is responsible but does anyone really think it will be much of a surprise to learn who cheated when he does? Tides go in. Tides go out. People act according to their natures. Nx was no surprise. The others won't very either and I very much doubt human is on the list. He may be acting out extremely angrily at how he sees things here, but he's as on the level as a man can be. 14:20, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

As someone who neither ran nor voted and is trying to edit on a smart phone

Weaseloids proposal looks alright. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but it's even easier if I just let the Weasel be the 7th, and I just sit here as an alternate, and everybody is happy, HCM avoided, etc. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:13, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That is all sorted then. Pi 3:14 (talk) 13:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yup, someone just needs to break the news to Turpis and Armondikov that they are switching roles. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:23, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

(EC) Not necessarily. It's an ad hoc proposal that deviates from standard election process, so we need to make sure the community is relatively happy with it before going ahead. Let's leave it a day or so, & intercom it so anyone interested gets a chance to comment. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 13:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Just noticing this thread now. This affects me more than anyone, it seems, so I'll just say I'll abide by whatever decision is reached. I will say it's a little early to call Weaseloid's proposal the final decision at this point. How that decision is ultimately reached is beyond me, and I'll sit the process out. DickTurpis (talk) 15:32, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy enough with the punkweasel consortium's solution. Concernedresident ^{omg!!! ponies!!!} 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘I still think we just make no changes and decide about how elections will go in the future. But that's just because it's the easiest thing to do. Neither result is any more inherently legitimate, and so the only thing that's wrong is that it was a bit of an inconsistency. So we just decide on a way in the future, forever, and call it a day.--^talk 20:46, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Let's make this easy

An upgrade from Weaseloid's solution, a final run-off with the 5 in question: RNS, Dick, Weasel, Armondikov, and Human. The top two with the most 1st and 2nd votes gets mod, third and fourth get alternates. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That's less easy. We want to avoid another vote.--^talk 20:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

What's the big deal?

Trent made a mistake in calculating the results. Fortunately, it was discovered early on, so it can be fixed easily. You don't need some nonsense arbitrary combination of the two result sets. You have the correct results. -- Nx / talk 19:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Anyone else a bit put off by the guy who abused the voting system telling us how it should be done? DickTurpis (talk) 20:04, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes. Wéáśéĺóíď^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Do the math yourself if you don't believe me. -- Nx / talk 20:07, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

While I prefer the correct results for consistency's sake, I'd be okay with a synthesis if most people agree it's legitimate. Blue (pester) 20:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not the math that concerns me, it's the irony of you, of all people, concerned about the system's integrity. DickTurpis (talk) 20:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yeah, if you think me voting with eligible socks invalidates the results then you have two invalid results. However, if you stick to your own opinion from six months ago, then you have one valid result. -- Nx / talk 20:57, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Never said any such thing, and I said I'd go with whatever was decided, which will probably mean I won't be a mod, and that's fine. If you see no irony in being a stickler for process I don't know what to tell you. To address your response far above about how you've done nothing wrong, well, the voting system for trustees, which is the same system we use for mods, refers to casting multiple votes as fraud. Also the rules specify eligibility based on user, not account. You maybe have more than one account, but you're one user. DickTurpis (talk) 21:49, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, I guess I did break the rules then. Oh well.

You did say this: "My view is that the names should be published, but I'm against any ex-post facto maneuvering to rescind votes. If revealing who voted seems to show some suspicious activity, we can discuss if it warrants some changes to the voting procedure for the next election. Having more information and keeping the process open seems beneficial to everyone. DickTurpis (talk) 14:02, 30 December 2011, Friday (6 months, 12 days ago) (UTC+1)" -- Nx / talk 22:17, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I did, and I stick by that. That doesn't mean I don't get to criticize those who broke the rules, however. DickTurpis (talk) 22:25, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Criticize all you want, doesn't change the fact that the results posted by Trent are wrong. -- Nx / talk 22:29, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the calculations Trent made this time were according to the same method as he used in December when we were also electing 7+2. I was hoping that Trent could confirm this, but he hasn't bothered. Your assertion that his calculations are "wrong" seems to be based on something he said in the by-election when we were voting for 2+1 rather than 7+2. The fact that there wasn't clarity about how the results would be calculated means that there is ambiguity about how to read the results. Your interpretation of the results is no less arbitrary than the published version or my attempt to amalgamate the two. Щєазєюіδ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 23:10, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

For the December elections, using 7 seats yields the same moderators as the published results, only one alternate is different - but this might be because the ballot file is not the same as the one Trent used, as I had to reconstruct it from the ballots he put on the wiki. Using 9 seats yields a result that contains the 7 winning moderators plus one of the alternates, and a different user as the other alternate, so it cannot possibly be correct.

You cannot rank the winners of an STV election. STV assumes that all the seats it is selecting winners for are equal, if you include alternates in the seats, then you're doing it wrong.

Selecting the alternates as the last two people to be eliminated is also pretty much wrong, because that depends on how the random selection works - in case of the online software I'm using, it seems to be based on the name of the candidate. -- Nx / talk 03:31, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Cumulative Voting

Just for fun: here the results is we had used cumulative voting:

elections 2012

larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 14:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I have no idea how to read that graph. DickTurpis (talk) 15:33, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

See File:Mod.wahl.png#Summary. larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't help. I can see the file just fine. I can't make heads or tails of what it means. DickTurpis (talk) 15:42, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Try the summary... larron^{sicut fur in nocte} 15:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Ah. Sorry. Didn't notice that. I think I get it now. If I'm reading it right, Ace, AD, Blue, Armondikov, and Genghis are elected in all 9 scenarios. I am an alternate in the 1 and 2 vote scenarios, but a mod in the others, Mikal is a mod in the 1 and 2 vote scenarios, but nothing in the others, Kels, Nutty, and RNS are alternates in some scenarios, but nothing in others, and Godot and Weaseloid are mods in some, alternates, in some, and nothing in some. Is that right? DickTurpis (talk) 16:00, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

RW, mods, rules.

You know what, for a wiki with so many extremely intelligent people, you guys are not being so smart about this. Why so hung up on trying to fit people into exactly 7 mod spots? Why is 7 the immovable, intractable, magic number that cannot be changed to allow for a couple more people that are qualified and eager to help out the wiki? These are people that many people voted for, in an election that was so close that they could have won, and were told they did win. So why not have 9 mods for this time, and this time only? In what way would that hurt the wiki? Keep in mind that this is a wiki that, without prior notice, with no community vote or approval, arbitrarily changed its whole existing system by getting rid of every single Bureaucrat in May of last year, including those who founded this site, then, without consensus from the community, decided that exactly 7 moderators, and no more, would be elected by single transferrable vote (again, with no community input into what voting system would be used), yet after all these unorthodox actions, are now so hung up on following the voting "rules" exactly to the nth degree, and are being so extremely rigid and unaccommodating, even if it means that those already told they were elected are removed as moderators. After the Bureaucrats were arbitrarily removed, the sense of being a real part of this wiki was greatly reduced. Now we have a few people "in power" with elite abilities such as "sysop-revoke" where a person's sysop-ship can be taken away and only restored by a moderator, and mods controlling who has "tech" abilities, where changes can be made that are not visible to the rest of us, and where a moderator can put a "filter" in place on an editor, and face absolutely no consequences for it. This reminds me of when TK was starting his power grab at another wiki (not CP) where he worked behind the scenes to remove everyone else's "powers" (like a couple of people removing all of the bureaucrats here) while increasing his own capabilities (like moderators with tech abilities), and then started making his moves ("It's just a filter, no harm, I removed it right away) which progressed to ("I just removed his posting rights for an hour or so, no big deal") as he "tested the waters" as to what people would overlook, (what's next for us, IP lookup for mods only?) while people stood by and watched, saying, "no, he means well, he's just trying to help", and "but he does so much work here", which allowed him to create more and more "levels of power" that others were excluded from until it was too late. TK also wanted to keep the number of people with powers down ("we need 7 mods, no more") and limit the power positions ("only a small number of people need "tech" rights - I'm one of them") which changed to "there are too many people with tech rights, only I should be able to control who has them" - then, "only certain people should have a vote or say-so"... until there was a huge imbalance of power and regular editors were being trodden over and kept from contributing, and tell me again why can we only have exactly 7 moderators and no more? Why can't we let there be 9 mods this time? This wiki with no restrictions on removing bureaucrats has hard and fast rules about moderator positions? The reforming of the "power structure" in this wiki is scary, it's very TK-ish and I'm not going to stick around and watch it happen. This wiki will of course not miss me, as I am not a big contributor despite being here since '07. Although I will miss people that I've come to know and like and consider friends. Not a LANCB, as I'm truly done here and won't be back, as my original purpose ended some time ago anyway. There are many really wonderful and knowledgeable people who write terrific articles and RW could be a truly great site - if only it could stop getting bogged down with the inner conflict/power structure/rules/BS stuff that takes up so much time and energy here. Refugee^{talk page} 19:21, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

So, nice wall of text, always fun to see those. Now... we really need an article on the "moving towards a tkish authoritarian dictatorship" accusation we keep getting leveled with. And one further point, we lost crats because may '11 was a terrible thing, if i read everything right, and last i checked, blue did get slapped down for her ace edit filter, so that avenue of abuse seems unlikely as well atm. --il'Dictator Mikal 19:26, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Refugee. I'm exactly like TK. Even as we speak I'm nefariously plotting to turn RW into an authoritarian CP-esque dictatorship. Blue (pester) 20:03, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Another misuse of the slippery slope argument. "If someone blocks a user for 10 minutes it's a step on the path to taking over the wiki!" But to address a few of the points raised. We could have 9 mods, sure. The problem is, who decides? We don't have a power structure that lets someone make that decision. I wouldn't be opposed to it, for obvious reasons, but it's hardly the sort of thing anyone can come along and say "we'll do it this way". As for getting rid of bureaucrats, we outgrew that a while ago. All it was was a way to sort of establish the "major players" here, in a basically arbitrary manner. As soon as 2 bureaucrats disagree on whether another should join the club it all goes to shit. And so it did. As for mods abusing powers, well, they've hardly ever used them, let alone abused them. Even Blue's edit filter thing made Ace have to click once more before posting on one page on the wiki (or something like that); it was hardly a high level abuse. Also I think it was her tech powers she abused, not mod ones. As for techs, I still see that as a sort of unsettled issue. I can imagine it becoming the new bureaucrat problem. So, long story short, Refugee, you seem a bit of an alarmist. If you're proven right I will issue an apology from my internment camp. DickTurpis (talk) 20:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry, I've phoned Refugee's place of work, so these turning into TK accuations shouldn't bother us much longer. Sophie^{because liberals} 22:34, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

<br>--User:Brxbrx/sig 21:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Sadly, you miss the point. The mods do nothing useful. Back when we had a few thousand sysops and about 45 'crats, at least it was obvious who had been around for a while. Now we just have idiots (sorry Ace, you are not an idiot!) jostling for power on a site THAT NEEDS NO POWER STRUCTURE. Fucking idiots. Observing it is a source of great humor/humour, though. Wish Susan was still alive. ħuman 03:47, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I now call for UHM to restart his Gotye Goatse spam. Human, what is wrong with you? Osaka Sun (talk) 03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Susan would goddamn horrified. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, because using Susan's memory to your advantage in a political dispute on a website is completely called for, gentlemen. I'm sure she would be overjoyed to hear how you're using her to fight these petty battles. Blue (pester) 04:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC) (stricken by author; replaced by Ace)

Go fuck yourself, that is not what I was doing. I am not fighting any battle here, I have no political dispute..I am not disputing anything with anyone and your insinuation that I am using Susan's memory for some imagined political debate is fucking atrocious. Your a worthless hag. Fuck you. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:09, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Christ almighty on a pogostick, we got more issues then a newsstand. --Revolverman (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Susan would goddamn horrified." At what, the colors on the main page? Jesus, Ace, how could I not interpret that as an attack on what Human was criticizing re the "fucking idiots" and the moderator system? I am not having this argument. You and Huw already hate me, so I doubt there will be any rational responses. Blue (pester) 04:15, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I just wish she were still alive. She was a good person and I still miss her. Since you (Blue) use my real name, what's yours? I don't hate you. I do, however, feel disgust when I think of how you operate here. Your lame cooping of me, and your horrible introduction to the mod group. You have no shame, you have no sense of proportion, and you have no idea at all of what this site is about. Hint: it is an experiment testing how people like you behave when invited to a "place with no rules". Your responses have been duly noted, and hopefully we can use them to make this planet a better place someday. ħuman 05:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

PS, it's also an experiment on how all of us behave, myself included. ħuman 05:30, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh shut the fuck up about this all being some fucking ant-farm experiment. --Revolverman (talk) 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

She would be horrified with this process is what I think - I am involved with no debate with anyone and I only dislike you because of ridiculous remarks like that one you just made. You sound like Brx. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:19, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

In the name of preventing another HCM, please let's just stop. Blue (is useful) 04:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That ship has LONG since sailed. So much for mods doing ANY fucking good. --Revolverman (talk) 04:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Fuck you Blue. You know you were wrong in making that suggestion about me but what do you care, eh? Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:27, 9 July 20

Contrary to popular opinion, I care a great deal about the site and I don't like pointless arguments to consume the community. Blue (is useful) 04:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

......Which is why you accused an editor not currently involved in any disputes of bringing up a deceased editor in order to prove a 'political dispute'? Weird. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You and Human are always involved in a dispute. Hell, the only reason Human comes by anymore is for disputes.--User:Brxbrx/sig 04:42, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Brx, read the message I left on your userpage and stay the fuck out of it. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 04:44, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh yeah, sorry, I accidentally edited an article or two. Brx, why are you still here? Because you like being part of the Blue Party? I'd bet he only tolerates you for your occasional !vote. ħuman 05:33, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Wait, WTF just happened? Human, you have just claimed those who support the moderator system are "fucking idiots." This constitutes a dispute. Then, once Blue called you and Ace out for insisting that Susan would agree with you, she gets hit with a flurry of insults?

I don't agree with Blue on a lot of things, but both of you, Ace and Human, are acting like the largest wankers on the planet right now. Stand down. Osaka Sun (talk) 05:54, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I pretty much agree with Osaka. We all miss Susan but bringing up her memory to support a particular viewpoint is not on. Just for the record, this is what Susan (aka Terry) once wrote to me:

Human is a total tosser!

Did you see this (http://rationalwiki.com/wiki/index.php?title=Special%3ALog&type=rights&user=Human&page=User%3APink)? Pink's no great loss to RW, but that was totally out of order. H thinks that he is RW - and he's allowed to to get away with it. I will make no more constructive edits to the wiki. Bye.

Terry

 Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 08:41, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was in know way using the memory of Susan to drive home any point or take any particular editors side. My comment was only about what I thought Susan would think of the sniping as a whole, mine included. I dont want to have to repeat this. Ace^{The Rep Grows Bigger} 09:00, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Ace, I didn't really intend to impugn your good name.  Lily ^{Inspirate me.} 14:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Sideline, neutral observer - IMO Ace got treated a bit unfairly above. On reading, it is quite apparent Ace was not using anyone's memory to support any viewpoint in this dispute (only to criticise the entire affair). I'm not knocking anyone, we all know comments can be easily misread when things are heated. But fair is fair, and Ace committed no foul here. VOX^HUMANA 09:36, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Inevitable vote about the vote

Since there are multiple suggestions about how to use the voting data/results at this point, a show of hands seems like the best way forward. Vote below on which proposal to adopt. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Trent's calculations

As posted on the results page. STV for 9 places, including the alternates. Moderators are Ace McWicked, AD, Blue, DickTurpis, Genghis Khant, Reckless Noise Symphony, WaitingforGodot. First Alternate is Armondikov, Second Alternate is Weaseloid.

Nx's calculations

As posted above. STV for 7 places, with alternates selected by highest remaining vote count. Moderators are Ace McWicked, AD, Armondikov, Blue, Genghis Khant, WaitingforGodot, Weaseloid. First Alternate is Human, Second Alternate is Reckless Noise Symphony.

Weaseloid's compromise proposal

See above. Ranking of candidates based on both interpretations of the results. Moderators Ace McWicked, AD, Armondikov, Blue, Genghis Khant, WaitingforGodot, Weaseloid. First Alternate is Reckless Noise Symphony (due to conceding), Second Alternate is DickTurpis.

1. I supported this last night and the only thing that changed is Refugee made a post so long it bored me to tears. Pi 3:14 (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Osaka Sun's run-off proposal

See above. Confirmed moderators are Ace McWicked, AD, Blue, Genghis Khant, WaitingforGodot. Two more moderators and two alternates to be selected by run-off vote between Armondikov, DickTurpis, Human, Reckless Noise Symphony, Weaseloid.

Refugee's compromise proposal

See above. Nine moderators: Ace McWicked, AD, Armondikov, Blue, DickTurpis, Genghis Khant, Reckless Noise Symphony, WaitingforGodot, Weaseloid.

1. I don't see why not. But if everyone's really married to the idea of there being seven mods & no more, I would opt for my suggested compromise over the other options. Weaseloid^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 00:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Scrap it and start again

Void the election results, agree exactly how votes will be calculated and a policy on sock voting, then vote again.

Goat

Quick fix

Having looked into it a bit, and seeing that it appears the rules were indeed changed this election from how it was done in the past two, I am prepared to abide by Nx's recent findings and step down. Reckless Noise has indicated he's willing to do the same (I tried to contact him off wiki to make this more of a joint announcement but haven't heard back from him yet; I'm going to go ahead now before this vote gets underway). As we are the only two negatively affected by this, there should be no further controversy, and Weaseloid and Armindikov should step into our places without any further ado. RNS will be first alternate, and I guess Human will be second. I will be a regular plebe like the rest of you guttersnipes. With that I think we can progress without another vote no one wants to bother with. DickTurpis (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

That is extremely mature, and I'm glad you are willing to accept such a solution. Thank you for being so gracious about it, both you and RNS.--^talk 04:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I got your message Turpis. It's just an extreme shame that nobody else here is mature enough to stop the bitching for 5 minutes to see that this was resolved without conflict..... Makes me sad, really. Lord of Reckless Noise ^{Hooray! I'm helping!} 13:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Democracy

I am assuming that we have an article called democracy and that it is hopefully smarter than most of what passes for "voting" on this site. Meh, it's bit clunky. ħuman 03:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

It's better now. ħuman 04:01, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

A significantly more straightforward method to select mods next time

This discussion was moved to Forum:User rights and moderation revisited. 21:10, 9 July 2012 (UTC)