[Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Discussion]

[deisik]

Well, I can only say that this should have been expected

Regarding who is going to join the ranks of global moderators, I don't particularly care as long as persecutions and subsequent bans are not going to be made in public. On the other hand, if banned users should be tagged appropriately (Banned rank or something to that tune) without disclosing full details about who banned whom and for what exactly, the whole process of publicly electing new global moderators doesn't make much sense, and to me, it looks more like farce and mockery

[1714977461]

1714977461

[1714977461]

1714977461

[Lauda]

I don't particularly care as long as persecutions and subsequent bans are not going to be made in public.

I don't think they ever will.

...the whole process of publicly electing new global moderators doesn't make much sense, and to me, looks more like farce and mockery

Read the fine print:

Disclaimer
This is not an official election. The winner is not guaranteed to be promoted to Global Moderator, however he/she will be suggested to theymos to be promoted. This is only to determine who the community wants as a Global Moderator. Theymos may choose to promote the winner of this election, he also may not. He may choose to promote no one, he may choose to promote someone else.

[dogie]

This doesn't seem right at all. Public voting to establish moderation, public voting where everyone's votes are considered equal on a site with an alt to person ratio of probably 3x, AND without the authorisation or blessing of the decision maker.

[minifrij]

AND without the authorisation or blessing of the decision maker.

I don't particularly see what's wrong with not having theymos' consent with this. The vote is essentially the same as me making a thread titled 'Who do you think the best moderator is?', only with an actual reason behind it and made by some people of a higher rank than me.
If theymos doesn't approve, he could simply not acknowledge the vote whatsoever and pick (or not pick) based on his own accord. It would be a let down, of course, but the vote will just be used to perhaps help in the decision.

From what I can see theymos is too busy currently to put all of his attention towards the forum and see who is helping the most and would be a best fit for the moderation team. This vote is simply to try and help him out. I don't mean this in a snarky or rude way, but if you have a better idea I'm sure the staff would like to hear it.

[dogie]

If theymos doesn't approve, he could simply not acknowledge the vote whatsoever and pick (or not pick) based on his own accord. It would be a let down, of course, but the vote will just be used to perhaps help in the decision.

This is the part that worries me because it's creating a default bias that unless Theymos objects that this should go through, which is the opposite order.

[Vod]

I'm not voting.  Even though it's not official, it can be used in the future against me to imply bias or favoritism.

I'll support whoever Theymos may (or may not) select.

[criptix]

I'm not voting.  Even though it's not official, it can be used in the future against me to imply bias or favoritism.

I'll support whoever Theymos may (or may not) select.

Your favourite is clearly theymos... smart one

[Lauda]

If theymos doesn't approve, he could simply not acknowledge the vote whatsoever and pick (or not pick) based on his own accord. It would be a let down, of course, but the vote will just be used to perhaps help in the decision.

This is the part that worries me because it's creating a default bias that unless Theymos objects that this should go through, which is the opposite order.

I actually think quite the opposite as I do not expect theymos to act based on these votes (alone or even just primarily).

I'm not voting.  Even though it's not official, it can be used in the future against me to imply bias or favoritism.

That's a fair point. I think the best that we could do post-election is to *archive* the thread into the trashcan section. However, someone could still archive your vote in the meantime to use it against you at a later date. That said, I wouldn't understand someone using their vote against them (this in particular).

[Foxpup]

Are we allowed to comment on the ongoing TCP count and trends in preference flows? Theoretically it's public knowledge, but people may be too lazy to count preferences on their own and could conceivably be influenced if someone does it for them.

[achow101]

Are we allowed to comment on the ongoing TCP count and trends in preference flows? Theoretically it's public knowledge, but people may be too lazy to count preferences on their own and could conceivably be influenced if someone does it for them.

Sure.

[HostFat]

@P4man
For what it count, I agree on what you are saying
I think that paid signature schemes should be banned, and even discovered services doing this on backstage, even them should be banned. (at least for a month)

[chixka000]

Read the fine print:

Disclaimer
This is not an official election. The winner is not guaranteed to be promoted to Global Moderator, however he/she will be suggested to theymos to be promoted. This is only to determine who the community wants as a Global Moderator. Theymos may choose to promote the winner of this election, he also may not. He may choose to promote no one, he may choose to promote someone else.

Well, that does make more sense.  If Theymos won't promote any of the participants who won the election, I still am pretty sure that he would at least able to consider the needs of a new active mod and find someone else he could.


EDIT: i am trying to think if someone would be promoted to global mods the staff position would be lacking

[Foxpup]

The results so far after preferences:

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
   Lauda (44.1%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (55.9%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 26
Mitchell: 33
Exhausted: 1

Although the primary votes are nearly evenly split between Lauda and Mitchell, Mitchell edges ahead on strong preferences from achow101's supporters. Dabs' supporters are a bit more evenly split, but still lean towards Mitchell. It's still a tight race with Lauda trailing by just 7 votes in this epic election which may or not end up making any difference whatsoever.

[achow101]

The results so far after preferences:

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
   Lauda (44.1%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (55.9%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 26
Mitchell: 33
Exhausted: 1

Although the primary votes are nearly evenly split between Lauda and Mitchell, Mitchell edges ahead on strong preferences from achow101's supporters. Dabs' supporters are a bit more evenly split, but still lean towards Mitchell. It's still a tight race with Lauda trailing by just 7 votes in this epic election which may or not end up making any difference whatsoever.

So this is what the results would be after doing the elimination process? What is "Exhausted"?

[Lutpin]

So this is what the results would be after doing the elimination process? What is "Exhausted"?

I would guess those are valid votes that have neither Lauda nor Mitchell in their 3 picks. So far, there's only 1 of them.

1. mprep https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=51173
2. Dabs  https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=54791
3. Adriano https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=profile;u=112568

[Foxpup]

So this is what the results would be after doing the elimination process?

Yes.

What is "Exhausted"?

Votes that didn't count because they had no preference for the top candidates (ie, every candidate they did have a preference for was eliminated). This situation is impossible in full preferential voting (where each vote must rank all the candidates) but we didn't do that, so some votes are bound to be "wasted" this way (though not nearly as many as in a FPTP election).

[lottery248]

IMO we should be able to vote non-staff members if we wish, because the selection would be too limited if we could not vote them. IIRC the people who are promoted to be a staff is probably from the opinion mainly from the higher position. even this could result in the mass registration of election, at least it could decrease the suspicion of biased nomination.

if we neither could vote for our loyal representative, join the nomination freely, nor if the number of votings could reflect what the majority are expecting for, including the balancing of the minorities, the result could possibly result in staff system disaster.

one more thing, global moderators elected are responsible to the happenings more than what we are required to address, not only monitoring the site.

[botany]

IMO we should be able to vote non-staff members if we wish, because the selection would be too limited if we could not vote them. IIRC the people who are promoted to be a staff is probably from the opinion mainly from the higher position. even this could result in the mass registration of election, at least it could decrease the suspicion of biased nomination.

if we neither could vote for our loyal representative, join the nomination freely, nor if the number of votings could reflect what the majority are expecting for, including the balancing of the minorities, the result could possibly result in staff system disaster.

one more thing, global moderators elected are responsible to the happenings more than what we are required to address, not only monitoring the site.

I understood your first sentence and nothing more. 
This is a vote for global moderators and hence only active staff members have been nominated.

[Lauda]

The results so far after preferences:

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
  Lauda (44.1%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (55.9%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 26
Mitchell: 33
Exhausted: 1

Nice visual representation. Thanks! Maybe I should have thought twice before banning so many people from Bitmixer.  

I understood your first sentence and nothing more.  

I have the same problem with that post.

[botany]

The results so far after preferences:

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
  Lauda (44.1%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓██▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (55.9%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 26
Mitchell: 33
Exhausted: 1

Nice visual representation. Thanks! Maybe I should have thought twice before banning so many people from Bitmixer.  

The votes that you have got could be a result of your action on Bitmixer.   Bitmixer participants have been spamming the hell out of this forum.
That said, people should not be confusing your actions as a campaign manager, with your actions as a staff member.