Bitcoin Forum
June 16, 2019, 11:45:36 AM *
News: Latest Bitcoin Core release: 0.18.0 [Torrent] (New!)
 
   Home   Help Search Login Register More  
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »  All
  Print  
Author Topic: [Unofficial] New Global Moderator Election - [Discussion]  (Read 11068 times)
achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2459


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2016, 01:38:06 AM
 #161

And the winner is Mitchell with 51 votes with Lauda close behind with 48.

We will likely recommend both to theymos for a potential new global moderator (or two).



No offence, but your laziness is likely to call the outcome into question. Undecided
No offence taken. The results of this are already questionable.

NEW GAME FORMAT
JACKPOT UP TO $8000+
Guess The Symbols Of a Real Ethereum Hash
PLAY NOW
Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
1560685536
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560685536

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560685536
Reply with quote  #2

1560685536
Report to moderator
1560685536
Hero Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 1560685536

View Profile Personal Message (Offline)

Ignore
1560685536
Reply with quote  #2

1560685536
Report to moderator
Dabs
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2352
Merit: 1143



View Profile
November 26, 2016, 03:31:05 AM
 #162

What were the raw counts? I'm 3rd or 4th from last? What's the popular vote?, and anyone else who isn't lazy to calculate for any other voting system?

Escrow Service (Services) - GPG ID: 32AD7565, OTC ID: Dabs
All messages concerning escrow or with bitcoin addresses are GPG signed. Please verify.
CompTIA A+, Microsoft Certified Professional, MCSA: Windows 10; Windows Server 2012, MCSE: Cloud Platform and Infrastructure; Productivity; Messaging
botany
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1064


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 03:46:15 AM
 #163

I was following the practice of Felon Disenfranchisement where convicted felons (i.e. scammers/those who have an overall negative trust score) are not allowed to vote. Given that this election is mostly based on the Australian election system, it also follows their use of felon disenfranchisement.

The only convicts here are those who have served at least one ban.  Smiley


And the winner is Mitchell with 51 votes with Lauda close behind with 48.
We will likely recommend both to theymos for a potential new global moderator (or two).

When is Theymos likely to take a call? Two additional global moderators might result in a vast improvement over the current scenario.
achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2459


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2016, 03:51:41 AM
 #164

What were the raw counts? I'm 3rd or 4th from last? What's the popular vote?, and anyone else who isn't lazy to calculate for any other voting system?
All votes and results are recorded at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bOitaEjce12xUzddwAwtwXGn9pH7FOpyPKl5Cbeo6ww

Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1504


Vile Vixen


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 05:43:40 AM
Merited by suchmoon (7)
 #165

Mitchell wins!

Two candidate preferred vote:
|
   Lauda (48.5%) ▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓█▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓▓ (51.5%) Mitchell
|
Lauda: 48
Mitchell: 51
Exhausted: 19

Swing-o-meter:
|
   Lauda (+1.1%) ░░░░░░░░░░░░████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (-1.1%) Mitchell
|

Lauda got a couple of extra votes in the final day, but in the end it just wasn't enough. Congratulations to Mitchell.

Final rankings:
CandidateRound 1Round 2Round 3Round 4Round 5
#1 Mitchell34 (28.8%)36 (30.5%)41 (34.7%)50 (42.7%)51 (51.5%)
#2 Lauda37 (31.4%)38 (32.2%)41 (34.7%)45 (38.5%)48 (48.5%)
#3 HostFat20 (16.9%)20 (16.9%)21 (17.8%)22 (18.8%)0
#4 Dabs14 (11.9%)15 (12.7%)15 (12.7%)00
#5 achow1018 (6.8%)9 (7.6%)000
#6 mprep5 (4.2%)0000
#7 Adriano00000
=7 xandry00000
Exhausted000119



Here's how the result would have turned out under some other voting systems:
First past the post:
The standard plurality system familiar to most people. The candidate with the most #1 votes wins!
#1 Lauda:    37 █████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (31.4%)       
#2 Mitchell: 34 ████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (28.8%)       
#3 HostFat:  20 ███████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (16.9%)       
#4 Dabs:     14 █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (11.9%)       
#5 achow101:  8 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.8%)       
#6 mprep:     5 ██░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 4.2%)       
#7 Adriano:   0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       
=7 xandry:    0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       

Lauda would have won under this system, though the rankings of the other candidates would remain unchanged.

Borda count:
Candidates receive 3 points for each #1 vote, 2 points for each #2 vote, and 1 point for each #3 vote. Naturally, the one with the most points wins!
#1 Mitchell: 188 ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (28.4%)         
#2 Lauda:    176 ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (26.6%)         
#3 achow101:  97 ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (14.7%)         
#4 Dabs:      84 █████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (12.7%)         
#5 HostFat:   67 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (10.1%)         
#6 mprep:     42 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.3%)         
#7 Adriano:    7 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 1.1%)         
#8 xandry:     1 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.2%)         

Mitchell still wins by a narrow margin, but with no eliminations, achow101 takes 3rd place. With #1 votes not as helpful under this system, and not having much else to go on, HostFat drops down to 5th place. Last, and in fact least, there is no longer a tie for last place. Xandry loses having received only a single #3 vote.

Bucklin voting:
When no candidate has a majority of #1 votes, #2 votes are added to the mix (and #3, if there's still no majority leader). (Majority is defined as 50% of the ballots (in this case 59), so it's possible for more than one candidate to have a majority after several rounds. In that case, the one with the highest count wins.)
#1 Mitchell: 68 ████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (30.5%)       
#2 Lauda:    58 ██████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (26.0%)       
#3 achow101: 31 ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (13.9%)       
#4 Dabs:     25 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (11.2%)       
#5 HostFat:  23 ████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ (10.3%)       
#6 mprep:    15 ███░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 6.7%)       
#7 Adriano:   3 █░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 1.3%)       
#8 xandry:    0 ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ ( 0.0%)       

Exhausted: 13
Mitchell is the only candidate to reach the requisite 59 votes and is the clear winner. As with the Borda system, achow101 is in 3rd and HostFat is in 5th, with #2 votes being more decisive. Again, xandry is in last place, with the single #3 vote not counting at all.

It's worth noting that this election was close enough that under systems where ballot exhaustion is a possibility (instant run-off and Bucklin), the exhausted ballots could have decided the outcome had they counted. Most of them were cases of people not putting a #2 or #3 preference. The outcome might have been different had people known how to vote properly. Roll Eyes

(Some percentages may not add to exactly 100.0% due to rounding errors.)

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2459


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
November 26, 2016, 05:59:30 AM
 #166

--snip--
That is a great analysis Foxpup, thanks for doing it!

xhomerx10
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2044
Merit: 2172


It's over 9000!


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 12:55:36 PM
 #167

--snip--
That is a great analysis Foxpup, thanks for doing it!

 That is an amazing analysis.  Did you type that all by hand or did you write some code to push it out?
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1504


Vile Vixen


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 02:51:11 PM
 #168

That is an amazing analysis.  Did you type that all by hand or did you write some code to push it out?
Everything from counting the votes to formatting the charts was all by hand, with some help from a calculator and two cans of Red Bull. That's why it took so long to push out. If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.



Bonus half-arsed analysis: Since two moderators might be promoted, I should note that under a two-winner single transferable vote (the multiple-winner version of instant run-off voting), Lauda and Mitchell would both win, regardless of what rules are used (if the Droop quota (33.3̅%+1) is used, they both win in round 3 above with 0.6̅ surplus votes each* (an exact tie), while if the Hare quota (50%) is used, Mitchell achieves quota in round 5, and Lauda wins by default being the only remaining candidate for Mitchell's 1.5 surplus votes to transfer to).

*These 1.3̅ votes would be subdivided further between the remaining candidates (HostFat and Dabs) based on the averaged preferences of all the votes for the winners, which means counting them all over again, which I'm not going to do because 1.3̅ votes isn't quite enough to bump Dabs into 3rd place, no matter which way they go.

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
Lauda
GrumpyKitty
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2240
Merit: 2073


Modern Liberalism is a Mental Disorder


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 02:54:07 PM
 #169

Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that.

If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.
I may be inclined to run another random election just to get some more of these stats. Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016? Cheesy

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
Mitchell
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2156
Merit: 1264


Verified awesomeness ✔


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 03:45:55 PM
 #170

Foxpup, those charts are amazing. Thanks for doing them!

.FORTUNE.JACK.
      ▄▄███████▄▄
   ▄████▀▀ ▄ ██████▄
  ████ ▄▄███ ████████
 █████▌▐███▌ ▀▄ ▀█████
███████▄██▀▀▀▀▄████████
█████▀▄▄▄▄█████████████
████▄▄▄▄ █████████████
 ██████▌ ███▀████████
  ███████▄▀▄████████
   ▀█████▀▀███████▀
      ▀▀██████▀▀
         
         █
...FortuneJack.com                                             
...THE BIGGEST BITCOIN GAMBLING SITE
       ▄▄█████████▄▄
    ▄█████████████████▄
  ▄█████████████████████▄
 ▄██
█████████▀███████████▄
██████████▀   ▀██████████
█████████▀       ▀█████████
████████           ████████
████████▄   ▄ ▄   ▄████████
██████████▀   ▀██████████
 ▀██
█████████████████████▀
  ▀██
███████████████████▀
    ▀█████████████████▀
       ▀▀█████████▀▀
#JACKMATE
WIN 1 BTC
▄█████████████████████████▄
███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
██████████▀█████▀██████████
███████▀░░▀░░░░░▀░░▀███████
██████▌░░░░░░░░░░░░░▐██████
██████░░░░██░░░██░░░░██████
█████▌░░░░▀▀░░░▀▀░░░░▐█████
██████▄░░▄▄▄░░░▄▄▄░░▄██████
████████▄▄███████▄▄████████

███████████████████████████
███████████████████████████
▀█████████████████████████▀
deisik
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1101


English ⬄ Russian Translation Services


View Profile
November 26, 2016, 04:31:40 PM
 #171

Excellent analysis Foxpup; thank you for doing that.

If we're ever going to do something like this again, I really ought to write some code to automate this work; a hundred ballots is about the limit of what I can manage in a reasonable time frame.
I may be inclined to run another random election

Oh, no, please not again!

Maybe Miss Bitcointalk 2016? Cheesy

Are you going to participate?

I think such a contest might attract by far more voters than the recent "elections", provided the contestants would be able to prove their identities first. Somehow, I won't be quite happy to see among the winners of this beauty contest some 50-year-old bald-headed crook with a pot belly and a set of false teeth

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
chixka000
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 910
Merit: 500



View Profile
November 27, 2016, 05:24:22 AM
 #172

Well, I was out for days and seeing the results just sounds fair to me, tnx to that expert above who spend some time in taking and analyzing everything out. Now it would go up to theymos by now i supposed? Much likely how the candidates want's the forum to be better again not just in terms of banning but also helping others

cheers,
Foxpup
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 2576
Merit: 1504


Vile Vixen


View Profile
November 27, 2016, 07:49:22 AM
 #173

More analysis! It's head-to-head time as we pit each candidate against each other candidate in a one-on-one contest for majority. For each match-up, only ballots which voted for one or both of the candidates are counted (ballots which voted for both count for whichever candidate was ranked higher). Here are the results:

Pairwise matrix
Candidateachow101AdrianoDabsHostFatLaudaMitchellmprepxandryWins
achow10158 (93.5%)51 (57.3%)54 (70.1%)29 (30.2%)24 (24.7%)54 (73.0%)58 (98.3%)5 █████░░
Adriano4 (6.5%)1 (2.2%)3 (11.1%)4 (4.7%)4 (4.5%)3 (12.0%)4 (100.0%)1 █░░░░░░
Dabs38 (42.7%)45 (97.8%)41 (64.1%)29 (29.3%)25 (25.3%)41 (69.5%)45 (97.8%)4 ████░░░
HostFat23 (29.9%)24 (88.9%)23 (35.9%)24 (23.8%)22 (20.8%)23 (51.1%)24 (100.0%)3 ███░░░░
Lauda67 (69.8%)81 (95.3%)70 (70.7%)77 (76.2%)48 (48.5%)76 (85.4%)81 (98.8%)6 ██████░
Mitchell73 (75.3%)84 (95.5%)74 (74.7%)84 (79.2%)51 (51.5%)81 (86.2%)86 (98.9%)7 ███████
mprep20 (27.0%)22 (88.0%)18 (30.5%)22 (48.9%)13 (14.6%)13 (13.8%)22 (95.7%)2 ██░░░░░
xandry1 (1.7%)0 (0.0%)1 (2.2%)0 (0.0%)1 (1.2%)1 (1.1%)1 (4.3%)0 ░░░░░░░
Losses26341057

As Mitchell has a majority over every other candidate, he is the Condorcet winner. Conversely, xandry is the Condorcet loser, being defeated by every other candidate. (Note that an election will not necessarily have a Condorcet winner and loser.)

Copeland's pairwise aggregation
Pairwise wins minus pairwise losses.
#1 Mitchell: ████████████████████████████████████████  7          
#2 Lauda:    ██████████████████████████████████░░░░░░  5          
#3 achow101: █████████████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░  3          
#4 Dabs:     ███████████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░  1          
#5 HostFat:  █████████████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -1          
#6 mprep:    ███████████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -3          
#7 Adriano:  ██████░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -5          
#8 xandry:   ░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░░ -7          

This system always elects the Condorcet winner when one exists, so naturally Mitchell comes out on top. As with the other systems where #1 votes aren't as important, achow101 reaches 3rd place and HostFat drops to 5th. Notably, the result is perfectly linear, as each candidate loses to every higher-placed candidate and defeats every lower-placed candidate, ie, there are no non-transitive preferences.

Will pretend to do unspeakable things (while actually eating a taco) for bitcoins: 1K6d1EviQKX3SVKjPYmJGyWBb1avbmCFM4
botany
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1568
Merit: 1064


View Profile
November 27, 2016, 02:28:50 PM
 #174

My head is spinning with all this analysis.
We should have an electoral college for this election.  Tongue
Let the contestants win local boards and then we will have a face off.
deisik
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1101


English ⬄ Russian Translation Services


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 01:02:02 PM
 #175

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
achow101
Staff
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1792
Merit: 2459


bc1qshxkrpe4arppq89fpzm6c0tpdvx5cfkve2c8kl


View Profile WWW
December 25, 2016, 03:37:09 PM
 #176

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me
Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.

jamalaezaz
Copper Member
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 1120
Merit: 523



View Profile WWW
December 25, 2016, 04:19:50 PM
 #177

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me
Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.
nor he will..
I don't think theymos will show any interest on these play of kids type activities which you guys are doing.. everything here is nothing but just a none sense game. this is not a way to select a global mod.

.SIGMA..
by HYDRA X
eTrade Crypto, Stocks, FX and moree
efrom a single trading platform...........
▄▄████████▄▄
▄████████████████▄
▄████████████████████▄
███████████▀    ▐███████
███████████    ▄▄█████████
▐██████████▀    ▀▀█████████▌
▐█████████▌       █████████▌
▐███████████    ███████████▌
███████████    ███████████
██████████    ██████████
▀████████▄  ▄████████▀
▀████████████████▀
▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀
.No commissions.
.or hidden fees.
eSign Upe


Joel_Jantsen
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1246
Merit: 1203


Can I merit you with some Flags? 🚩


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 04:25:21 PM
 #178

this is not a way to select a global mod.
What is the right way then ? Please enlighten us Bitcointalk Jesus.

.BitDice.               ▄▄███▄▄
           ▄▄██▀▀ ▄ ▀▀██▄▄
      ▄▄█ ▀▀  ▄▄█████▄▄  ▀▀ █▄▄
  ▄▄██▀▀     ▀▀ █████ ▀▀     ▀▀██▄▄
██▀▀ ▄▄██▀      ▀███▀      ▀██▄▄ ▀▀██
██  ████▄▄       ███       ▄▄████  ██
██  █▀▀████▄▄  ▄█████▄  ▄▄████▀▀█  ██
██  ▀     ▀▀▀███████████▀▀▀     ▀  ██
             ███████████
██  ▄     ▄▄▄███████████▄▄▄     ▄  ██
██  █▄▄████▀▀  ▀█████▀  ▀▀████▄▄█  ██
██  ████▀▀       ███       ▀▀████  ██
██▄▄ ▀▀██▄      ▄███▄      ▄██▀▀ ▄▄██
  ▀▀██▄▄     ▄▄ █████ ▄▄     ▄▄██▀▀
      ▀▀█ ▄▄  ▀▀█████▀▀  ▄▄ █▀▀
           ▀▀██▄▄ ▀ ▄▄██▀▀
               ▀▀███▀▀
        ▄▄███████▄▄
     ▄███████████████▄
    ████▀▀       ▀▀████
   ████▀           ▀████
   ████             ████
   ████ ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄ ████
▄█████████████████████████▄
██████████▀▀▀▀▀▀▀██████████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████                   ████
████▄                 ▄████
████████▄▄▄     ▄▄▄████████
  ▀▀▀█████████████████▀▀▀
        ▀▀▀█████▀▀▀
▄▄████████████████████████████████▄▄
██████████████████████████████████████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                            █████
█████                     ▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄▄
█████                   ▄█▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀█▄
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
█████                   ██          ██
██████████████████▀▀███ ██          ██
 ████████████████▄  ▄██ ██          ██
   ▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀▀ ██          ██
             ██████████ ██          ██
           ▄███████████ ██████▀▀██████
          █████████████  ▀████▄▄████▀
[/]
deisik
Legendary
*
Online Online

Activity: 1946
Merit: 1101


English ⬄ Russian Translation Services


View Profile
December 25, 2016, 04:36:30 PM
Last edit: December 25, 2016, 06:50:00 PM by deisik
 #179

Well, it's been over a month since the so-called elections ended... So what's the final outcome of all that? Did anyone get promoted to a Global Moderator office? What was theymos' decision on the candidacy of the winner? It was Mitchell if I'm not mistaken, but he is still only Staff (I just checked). And while we are at it, what's become of the Banned rank suggestion discussed earlier?

I haven't been closely following Meta recently, so please bear with me
Unfortunately nothing has been done. I have PM'ed theymos and attempted to get his attention about this but so far he has not responded.
nor he will..
I don't think theymos will show any interest on these play of kids type activities which you guys are doing.. everything here is nothing but just a none sense game. this is not a way to select a global mod.

That should have been expected

Personally, I don't care so much about who will get promoted to a Global Moderator position (at least as long as they don't interfere with normal posters) as about the idea of the Banned rank, which has been seemingly abandoned by now. Implementing that would render very bad service to the forum, and it's a pity that those supporting this idea don't fully understand the consequences

this is not a way to select a global mod.
What is the right way then ? Please enlighten us Bitcointalk Jesus.

How former and present Global Moderators were selected?

......
.L I V E C O I N . N E T.
.
..PROFITBOX..
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
█████████████▄  ▄████████████
    █████████████████████████
  ██████████▀    ▀█ ▀████████
████  █████▀  ▄▄  ▀█  ▀██████
  ████████▀  ▄██▄  ▀█   ▀████
    ██████   ▀██▀   ██   ████
  █████████▄      ▄██████████
██  █████████▄  ▄████████████
  ███████████████████████████
██  █████████████████████████
  █████████████████████▀ ███
█████████████████████▀   ███
    █████████████▀     ████
  █████████████▀   ██    ████
████  █████▀     ██    ████
  ███████▀   ██    ██    ████
    █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████    ██    ██    ████
██  █████    ██    ██    ████
  ███████████████████████████
.....
InvoKing
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1344
Merit: 1064


View Profile
December 26, 2016, 12:03:26 AM
 #180

That should have been expected

Personally, I don't care so much about who will get promoted to a Global Moderator position (at least as long as they don't interfere with normal posters) as about the idea of the Banned rank, which has been seemingly abandoned by now. Implementing that would render very bad service to the forum, and it's a pity that those supporting this idea don't fully understand the consequences

A democracy in a private property of someone else  Wink
Well wonder know how theymos thinks about this and if he thinks that the forums needs a new global mod or not for the moment.
The experience was great and I personally liked it.
Pages: « 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 »  All
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!