VOTE on your new Moderators!

[Kaebora]

Here are the volunteers and nominees. Remember, this is not a popularity contest. You are voting for who you think would be the best Moderators for our forum. So it begins. You have one week until the vote closes.

You may vote for up to three of the listed nominees/volunteers.

The winners have two days to claim their position or else the runner-up will get it. Runners-up will win by default if the winners decline the position.

Good Luck.

[Howlitzer]

I already mentioned this apparent misunderstanding on the other thread concerning new Mod nominations and such, but I was nominated and would, in fact, still like to be in consideration for this, Kae. So if you see this soon, please add my name to the poll list.

Though it probably won't matter by now considering it looks like a lot of people have already voted with my name not there, unless you started this poll over again, which I'm kinda not wanting to go so far as asking you to do... >.<....

I still would like to be added though.

[Kaebora]

I'm sorry for the mistake. The change is made, and the vote is reset. For those of you who voted, please vote again.

[Howlitzer]

Thanks Kae, no worries about the mistake. Just wanted my fair shot.

[Lupin]

Here are the volunteers and nominees. Remember, this is not a popularity contest.

Since it's not a popularity contest, revoting should be turned off.

[PariahPoet]

Why?

I changed one of my votes from Baph to Outward because of Baph's housing problems, not because of who I liked more. I think that they would both be excellent mods, but because Baph may or may not be able to be online for a while I changed my vote.

I don't think anyone is changing votes based on popularity.

[Kaebora]

Exactly my point. That statement is to make people understand that their votes are entirely anonymous, and that a better vote is to be based on who is the best moderator rather than who is a better friend to you. Revoting allows us all to make absolutely sure we make no mistake with our votes. It automatically ends on Friday evening, so that makes it just fine.

BTW, don't worry about Baph. He's already moved, and in his new place with internet.

[Lupin]

That statement is to make people understand that their votes are entirely anonymous, and that a better vote is to be based on who is the best moderator rather than who is a better friend to you.

Actually that's a perfect reason for why you should only be allowed to vote once, so people actually have to think about it instead of going "Oh i can just change my vote later."

[Kaebora]

A more important reason, is due to the fact that a nominee could drop out of the vote, and people would be stuck with that person as one of their choices. Someone changing their vote at the last minute is circumstantial, and benificial for an accurate representation. It has no adverse effects on the outcome.

[Lupin]

A more important reason, is due to the fact that a nominee could drop out of the vote, and people would be stuck with that person as one of their choices.

Not really. In order to be accurate, the poll would have to be re-organized which would invalidate all previous votes anyway.

[PariahPoet]

*shrug* We're just voting on mods, it's not the presidential elections.
I can understand your concern, but I don't think it's going to be life or death either way.

[Baphnedia]

*dies*

[Spongy]

Can't we just leave the poll open? As in, letting someone change their minds.. Like Pariah said, this isn't the presidential election, so it's not that important.

says the one with no votes.... although that has nothing do with my opinion on the matter, i assure you

[outwarddoodles]

Can't we just leave the poll open? As in, letting someone change their minds.. Like Pariah said, this isn't the presidential election, so it's not that important.

says the one with no votes.... although that has nothing do with my opinion on the matter, i assure you

The funny thing is, before the re-vote, I clearly remember you having a couple. I wonder if the change-vote option is encouraging people to vote for the "front-runners" rather than the 'third' candidates.

Anyhow, I'm not going to sit and analyze vote counts. As I said earlier, I'm done with elections.

[Baphnedia]

OD, that is a horse we beat dead into the ground in IRC last night. Some of us worried that it turned into a popularity contest rather than voting for moderators. Now I know why dictatorships are so awesome. Democracies require so much work!

[Kaebora]

I didn't think it would turn into such a fiasco. What should we do? Recount?

[PariahPoet]

Look for hanging chads.... -_-

[Midnight]

.

[Spongy]

OD, that is a horse we beat dead into the ground in IRC last night. Some of us worried that it turned into a popularity contest rather than voting for moderators. Now I know why dictatorships are so awesome. Democracies require so much work!

In the end, that's what any election is. A popularity contest.

[Kaebora]

After some consideration, I suppose I agree that it should not allow revoting. I've turned it back to 3 votes, one time submission. It's more like a real life vote that way I guess. I don't think you can change your vote in typical elections (but if you could it may be a huge hassle).

Also, if there are any ties we will do a tiebreaker vote.

[PariahPoet]

*shrug* I still don't think there was any problem with the way it was set up to begin with.
I liked that a person could reconsider if a new circumstance arises.

[Werewolf Warrior]

I would have to agree with Pariah. I dont see any problem at all.

[Howlitzer]

If anything it's been interesting watching the vote distribution drift around over the last couple days...

It would be nicer if votes only changed due to an actual change in circumstance (such as dropouts, etc)... that actually makes sense. But when the option for vote-changing is given, on an online poll especially, the drawback is that they'll change for other reasons too....and yes, votes will drift around to a degree based on how well someone is doing...

If anything, it would be nice if before voting, you couldn't see the current results....that would ensure that someone doesn't click "view results" and vote or not vote for someone based on how many or few votes they already have. This forces them to ACTUALLY make a decision, rather than following the crowd. In actual elections, it's illegal to broadcast poll results for a given state before the polls have closed in that state, because of the possibility of it influencing the people who haven't voted yet.

Having said that, though, I don't see any major problems here either way. We'll see what happens.

[Baphnedia]

On Friday, after this poll is closed, I think that it will be relieving for most involved. A Tie Breaker vote might not be needed; that decision is Kaebora's (and/or the other admins facilitating this election).. but it would be an arbitrary way of developing a sequence of who gets offered moderator positions.

[Spongy]

All you people must either hate me or not trust me at all

No worries though. I wont take offense.