The Election Of A New Staff Member

[Dad]

so as it stands, you're merely keeping tally correct? so that would mean the method of actual selection/ the actual selection has yet to be  enaected? if so then there's no real reason to change votes, at least not much reason, since you can, if need be create a cutoff point, like a top 5 or some other such method should things change.

 

I've kept track of everything from both sides and both methods.  So I have everything saved and recorded just in case.

[vla1ne]

then there's no real problem. as long as everything's being properly tracked, you should still be able to hold the election fairly no matter which method folks use.

[Dad]

then there's no real problem. as long as everything's being properly tracked, you should still be able to hold the election fairly no matter which method folks use.

 

I kept the points model aside because it conflicted with the tally model but everything should pan out in the end.

[Sleepy]

There shouldn't be "both methods"

NOW people could send votes in both formats, but I doubt that's what's been happening prior to this intervention.

Both formats seem a little contradictory so I gather there would have to be 2 lists in the same PM like Winter did?

And people last page were encouraged to change format against the Alternative Vote one, right?

 

[vla1ne]

There shouldn't be "both methods"

 

NOW people could send votes in both formats, but I doubt that's what's been happening prior to this intervention.

Both formats seem a little contradictory so I gather there would have to be 2 lists in the same PM like Winter did?

 

And people last page were encouraged to change format against the Alternative Vote one, right?

from the OP

We will be using the Alternative Vote method. It was outlined in the other thread, but so people know what to do, just order those names from most wanted to least wanted for the spot. You don't need to pick all 10.

 

if i'm reading this right, you can send as many as you like, anywhere from 1-10 votes, as such, the model should hold regardless, since no matter what happens, you would still be voting for the people you want first, and if that vote's not enough for them to win, (First past the post if i recall) then no matter what else you add or subtract, they aren't going to win. could be wrong though.

[Dad]

There shouldn't be "both methods"

 

NOW people could send votes in both formats, but I doubt that's what's been happening prior to this intervention.

Both formats seem a little contradictory so I gather there would have to be 2 lists in the same PM like Winter did?

 

And people last page were encouraged to change format against the Alternative Vote one, right?

 

 

 

Feel free to leave it in alternative vote format.  I have both lists so it's not an issue.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

then there's no real problem. as long as everything's being properly tracked, you should still be able to hold the election fairly no matter which method folks use.

This isn't accurate. The way the vote had already been determined to be conducted, and the way dad thought it worked, result in significantly different layouts and interpretations of the same ballot.

 

This system of "put the points where you want" completely ignores the reasons preferential voting was decided upon. It encourages members to only support one candidate, which causes even further issue in just how many people are here. It skews the results, and doesn't properly encompass a member's views of the whole selection.

 

If a member doesn't even want to include a member in there list for a preferential voting system, that's fine, but that doesn't count further against them. If, say a member only had a list of three people, then if all three of them had been ruled out, their vote would become meaningless

 

Dad, it's fine if you don't immediately understand how the entire system works. You have time to figure it out. But do not misinform other members on how this works. It just adds chaos to the entire process, and creates extra steps and procedures that there are no need for. Telling people to change their votes, or submit additional votes, to fit your own misunderstanding causes confusion at best,

and skews the result of the election at worst.

[vla1ne]

This isn't accurate. The way the vote had already been determined to be conducted, and the way dad thought it worked, result in significantly different layouts and interpretations of the same ballot.

 

This system of "put the points where you want" completely ignores the reasons preferential voting was decided upon. It encourages members to only support one candidate, which causes even further issue in just how many people are here. It skews the results, and doesn't properly encompass a member's views of the whole selection.

 

If a member doesn't even want to include a member in there list for a preferential voting system, that's fine, but that doesn't count further against them. If, say a member only had a list of three people, then if all three of them had been ruled out, their vote would become meaningless

 

Dad, it's fine if you don't immediately understand how the entire system works. You have time to figure it out. But do not misinform other members on how this works. It just adds chaos to the entire process, and creates extra steps and procedures that there are no need for. Telling people to change their votes, or submit additional votes, to fit your own misunderstanding causes confusion at best,

and skews the result of the election at worst.

wait, are we missing something here? i feel we're on the same page, but i'm not quite catching you. i assumed dad meant you were free to only include those you want to win, and you can exclude those you don't wish to vote for, which would, unless i'm overlooking something, still have similar results, then again, my use of the words "no matter which method" may easily open up some issues there.

[LordCowCowCowCowCowCowCowCow]

wait, are we missing something here? i feel we're on the same page, but i'm not quite catching you. i assumed dad meant you were free to only include those you want to win, and you can exclude those you don't wish to vote for, which would, unless i'm overlooking something, still have similar results, then again, my use of the words "no matter which method" may easily open up some issues there.

Best I can tell one method is voting in order of preference the other is giving a vote to everyone you mention.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

One method would be to get 10 pts, and split it among contests how you wish

 

Winner of Majority or Plurality wins there, or we can have a run-off

 

Other is more confusing, and what people told me it was, which is you rank in order you want, and if your #1 choice doesn't make it, your #2 will

 

but in that system, Idk why you WOULDN'T wanna vote for all 10 (in some order)

 

Which leads me to believe that Dad is correct on how the system works

The first is more interesting, it'll make you gauge how well people are doing and split your vote accordingly

 

 

Say you want Giga to win, but want Cow to be your second, you know Giga is a head, give Giga 3 pts, and Cow 7 etc

[Dad]

Best I can tell one method is voting in order of preference the other is giving a vote to everyone you mention.

 

That was the misunderstanding.

 

 

wait, are we missing something here? i feel we're on the same page, but i'm not quite catching you. i assumed dad meant you were free to only include those you want to win, and you can exclude those you don't wish to vote for, which would, unless i'm overlooking something, still have similar results, then again, my use of the words "no matter which method" may easily open up some issues there.

 

This is what I meant.  Ignore what I've said tho and let flame clear any misunderstanding up.

[vla1ne]

One method would be to get 10 pts, and split it among contests how you wish

 

Winner of Majority or Plurality wins there, or we can have a run-off

 

Other is more confusing, and what people told me it was, which is you rank in order you want, and if your #1 choice doesn't make it, your #2 will

 

but in that system, Idk why you WOULDN'T wanna vote for all 10 (in some order)

 

Which leads me to believe that Dad is correct on how the system works

The first is more interesting, it'll make you gauge how well people are doing and split your vote accordingly

 

 

Say you want Giga to win, but want Cow to be your second, you know Giga is a head, give Giga 3 pts, and Cow 7 etc

ah, that was the part that kept slipping by me... i stand by my choices either way though.

[Flame Dragon]

The way the alternative vote works is as follows

1) Collect all votes

2) Count each persons 1st vote

3) Drop the person with the least

4) Anyone who had that person listed as 1st then have their 2nd vote counted

Repeat 3 and 4.

 

 

Also, end date since I thought I said one, but didn't. Sunday 11:59 PM PST.

[Sunshine Jesse]

Not sure if I should make a speech or anything of the like. Ultimately I just want YCM to be a better place and anyone who can accomplish that would make me happy. While I'm 100% confident in my own ability to help solve the problems that need solving, I'm at least 95% confident that my other choices could too.
 
My ideal YCM would have a completely open discussion and debate on policy and staff (that actually accomplishes something and doesn't just amount to noise), but I know that's not the kind of thing that a new mod or two alone could cause. This election definitely inspires me to want to be more active either way, especially if it's not just a token gesture. (Actual) Transparency is immensely important to me and this kind of thing is a massive step in the right direction. It goes a long way towards restoring the collective trust in the mod team that I feel has been damaged over the past year or so. I hope I don't end up eating my words

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

That was the misunderstanding.

 

 

 

This is what I meant.  Ignore what I've said tho and let flame clear any misunderstanding up.

 

 

The way the alternative vote works is as follows

1) Collect all votes

2) Count each persons 1st vote

3) Drop the person with the least

4) Anyone who had that person listed as 1st then have their 2nd vote counted

Repeat 3 and 4.

 

 

Also, end date since I thought I said one, but didn't. Sunday 11:59 PM PST.

In Light of this can I revote?

[vla1ne]

In Light of this can I revote?

well, better now than never. just make sure the top of your list is in order.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

well, better now than never. just make sure the top of your list is in order.

It is, the person who I have as my number 2 basically makes the rest of the list invalid tough. Wouldn't be shocked if said person wins outright majority in first round. My number 1 choice is just the person who I think will do the best job, but isn't super well known outside of RP

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

This election definitely inspires me to want to be more active either way, especially if it's not just a token gesture. (Actual) Transparency is immensely important to me and this kind of thing is a massive step in the right direction. It goes a long way towards restoring the collective trust in the mod team that I feel has been damaged over the past year or so. I hope I don't end up eating my words

Every word of this multiple times over

[Tesability Black]

One: Oh, good gods, the moment I choose to take time to think of what to say, this thread exploded. It's good that people are active about this subject, but wow.

Two: Well, due to the openness of the position and the relative lack of knowledge regarding what all the role truly entails, I will not make promises that may be rendered impossible to follow through. Making a promise of such natures with an incredible lack of knowledge would not be the wisest course of action.

 

One thing I am more than capable of promising, however, is being available quite literally almost all the time. The people in RP are across the world and I've spoken with almost all of them on a regular basis, so a good number of them can confirm this fact. I bring this up in specific due to the fact that many moderators on the forum are stressed out over life, such as work. Since I am quite literally paid SSI (A government stipend for the disabled, you could say for those outside of the USA) and do not work (not from lack of trying), I have way more than enough free time to spare for this place.

 

One of the complaints that has been given about the mod team is the fact that it seems like most of them do not really communicate with one another. Due to the constant availability, I may be able to act in a role no other would be able to, and that's be knowledgeable of the overall actions of the mod, allowing for potentially better coordination among the team if not also better communication.

Three: While I haven't been one for here, I have been a moderator in a couple sites. Even had to stop a literal spam attack on one of those forums, because one of the members got royally ticked at the rest of the forum and actually had some skill with using multiple spambots at once. Trust me, that was madness...

[Tourmaline]

I was actually going to make my main post in this thread, coincidentally, about the literature and film section, so Sakura's post five minutes ago is convenient. I have several years of moderating two forums before this one (a Bleach one and a Persona one), Dad actually being able to attest to my performance on the Persona one, and they've tempered my understanding of the position compared to most people's.

 

Being a contentious individual aside, a short manifesto is appropriate for any candidate, so I communicate a desire to invest in the literature section. It was never popular or active, and it was generally always genre over literary fiction, but literature (alongside philosophy and scripture, as I communicated to Dad), especially as a reflection of reality, prompts endless passionate and mutually meaningful discussion. Multivariate perspectives on the work (death of the author) give literary discussion, after the very experience of the text, a special trait as an artistic means to communicate intellectually and share oneself interpersonally, crossing the gulf to compassion and sincerity debate and soliloquy fail to. Anyway, I'd probably focus on short stories at first so even the less read member or literary members can easily find a pdf and interact, have discussions and archive them, likely start with Borges as an excellent short story writer and eventually to something not very long and formidable like the Divine Comedy, which can be divided by cantos or Paradise Lost divided by halves of books and discussed regularly.

 

I have a professional understanding of the moderator role, citing my earlier post regarding Fusion. Reiterating, strategic criteria for successful moderation predicates discrimination on the non-chimerical and explicit traits of objectivity, impartiality, and general competence— all of which I exhibit exceedingly. Competence encompasses qualities like adaptability (critical to a unique sociopolitical environment like YCM, visible especially through my extreme emotional control and fortitude before scrutiny) and intelligence (critical for all success), and these, in synthesis, enable the person, in YCM's case, like the scintillating autodidact or polymath, participation in any section with a rapid and peerless understanding of what makes that section tick, prompt and effective action preceded by ideation in those sections, stellar communication with members and cooperation with their concerns, questions and the implementation/scrutiny of the aforementioned ideas and a metaphysical grasp of social theory relevant to keeping old members and engaging new ones. These are traits I exhibit especially when I choose to, and in this position, I would always choose to.

 

Ah, and of course, I can be very kind, cordial and social. I'm socially eclectic: my relationships with people across the plane of ideologies is solid by virtue of a severe and indomitable care for intellectual honesty and general courtesy. These are important for a community leader to have and, in the position, I would express a paradigmatic regard for them. These are more fitting for YCM-specific moderators, invoking Black's eminent demand of not wanting a mere police officer to moderate (note that it's not that easy to become a police officer, though) and the criticism of my long-term antisocial behavior, dispelling both simultaneously with the utmost solemnity.

 

Relevant to the recent climate and to the members is a rare willingness to express my contentious opinion where I must. I'm rather well-known if for nothing else my controversial behavior and ideas and, in the early 2010s, I very often criticized moderation (and still continue to when invoked) where I believe a true error lies. As a lover of philosophy, Jonathan Swift and Huxley, I can assure the will to scrutinize the team properly, which is a very intellectually demanding task and communicating enthusiastically with the ambit of members to ensure the memberbase's primordial and harmonious consciousness its divine right as the impetus of all moderation action, and I would stand for nothing less (thus my challenging the others when needed).

 

I'm available all the time like the others. I check the site at least a dozen times a day and I've always been very punctual; I do not read a PM and then forget it unless it was a large group PM (Sleepy can attest to this, in fact). 

 

My possession of these traits, alongside a general intellectual appreciation, sincere love of people (I don't have to agree with them: Black, CowCow, Polaris, Night, et cetera) and indestructible willpower (Joseph can try to 1v1 me on this) are why I would succeed in the position, especially considering I have plans when the precedent for this election is choosing between individuals with generally impromptu plans. Thank you for your time.

[Simping For Hina]

I was actually going to make my main post in this thread, coincidentally, about the literature and film section, so Sakura's post five minutes ago is convenient. I have several years of moderating two forums before this one (a Bleach one and a Persona one), Dad actually being able to attest to my performance on the Persona one, and they've tempered my understanding of the position compared to most people's.

 

Being a contentious individual aside, a short manifesto is appropriate for any candidate, so I communicate a desire to invest in the literature section. It was never popular or active, and it was generally always genre over literary fiction, but literature (alongside philosophy and scripture, as I communicated to Dad), especially as a reflection of reality, prompts endless passionate and mutually meaningful discussion. Multivariate perspectives on the work (death of the author) give literary discussion, after the very experience of the text, a special trait as an artistic means to communicate intellectually and share oneself interpersonally, crossing the gulf to compassion and sincerity debate and soliloquy fail to. Anyway, I'd probably focus on short stories at first so even the less read member or literary members can easily find a pdf and interact, have discussions and archive them, likely start with Borges as an excellent short story writer and eventually to something not very long and formidable like the Divine Comedy, which can be divided by cantos or Paradise Lost divided by halves of books and discussed regularly.

 

I have a professional understanding of the moderator role, citing my earlier post regarding Fusion. Reiterating, strategic criteria for successful moderation predicates discrimination on the non-chimerical and explicit traits of objectivity, impartiality, and general competence— all of which I exhibit exceedingly. Competence encompasses qualities like adaptability (critical to a unique sociopolitical environment like YCM, visible especially through my extreme emotional control and fortitude before scrutiny) and intelligence (critical for all success), and these, in synthesis, enable the person, in YCM's case, like the scintillating autodidact or polymath, participation in any section with a rapid and peerless understanding of what makes that section tick, prompt and effective action preceded by ideation in those sections, stellar communication with members and cooperation with their concerns, questions and the implementation/scrutiny of the aforementioned ideas and a metaphysical grasp of social theory relevant to keeping old members and engaging new ones. These are traits I exhibit especially when I choose to, and in this position, I would always choose to.

 

Ah, and of course, I can be very kind, cordial and social. I'm socially eclectic: my relationships with people across the plane of ideologies is solid by virtue of a severe and indomitable care for intellectual honesty and general courtesy. These are important for a community leader to have and, in the position, I would express a paradigmatic regard for them. These are more fitting for YCM-specific moderators, invoking Black's eminent demand of not wanting a mere police officer to moderate (note that it's not that easy to become a police officer, though) and the criticism of my long-term antisocial behavior, dispelling both simultaneously with the utmost solemnity.

 

Relevant to the recent climate and to the members is a rare willingness to express my contentious opinion where I must. I'm rather well-known if for nothing else my controversial behavior and ideas and, in the early 2010s, I very often criticized moderation (and still continue to when invoked) where I believe a true error lies. As a lover of philosophy, Jonathan Swift and Huxley, I can assure the will to scrutinize the team properly, which is a very intellectually demanding task and communicating enthusiastically with the ambit of members to ensure the memberbase's primordial and harmonious consciousness its divine right as the impetus of all moderation action, and I would stand for nothing less (thus my challenging the others when needed).

 

I'm available all the time like the others. I check the site at least a dozen times a day and I've always been very punctual; I do not read a PM and then forget it unless it was a large group PM (Sleepy can attest to this, in fact). 

 

My possession of these traits, alongside a general intellectual appreciation, sincere love of people (I don't have to agree with them: Black, CowCow, Polaris, Night, et cetera) and indestructible willpower (Joseph can try to 1v1 me on this) are why I would succeed in the position, especially considering I have plans when the precedent for this election is choosing between individuals with generally impromptu plans. Thank you for your time.

I love you.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

I wish you had a real chance to win this Hina :/

Chances are that Giga or Cow win in round one though :/

[vla1ne]

I wish you had a real chance to win this Hina :/

Chances are that Giga or Cow win in round one though :/

you have the power to prevent this you know. besides, if they (anybody) get their votes all in one go, that only saves them from the first, and maybe second elimination. remember, a lot of the people you may have confidence in, might be down on the list for that very same reason. till votes are in, it's anybody's game.

[(GigaDrillBreaker)]

you have the power to prevent this you know. besides, if they (anybody) get their votes all in one go, that only saves them from the first, and maybe second elimination. remember, a lot of the people you may have confidence in, might be down on the list for that very same reason. till votes are in, it's anybody's game.

Despite the overwhelming unlikelihood of it happening, if a member has received a majority win, the vote ends there, even if it's only off of the first picks.

 

That said, whomever is picked is almost certainly going to do great things with the role. Almost every candidate has their own strengths for this, even some of those I don't personally support. Not to mention the fact that it was outright stated that this would not be the last mod election, and that it's even possible two people will be promoted from this one.

 

If someone wants to vote for Hina ahead of me, I urge them to do so. The entire point of this election is that the promotion is chosen by the members of this community, so each person should be voting for whomever they believe could do the best work in it.

[Ryusei the Morning Star]

you have the power to prevent this you know. besides, if they (anybody) get their votes all in one go, that only saves them from the first, and maybe second elimination. remember, a lot of the people you may have confidence in, might be down on the list for that very same reason. till votes are in, it's anybody's game.

I like Giga, he's very high up on my list of ideal mods, but he's not the top spot. There's not point trying to sink him to back someone who won't win

 

It's like voting 3rd party. Stupid

Despite the overwhelming unlikelihood of it happening, if a member has received a majority win, the vote ends there, even if it's only off of the first picks.

 

That said, whomever is picked is almost certainly going to do great things with the role. Almost every candidate has their own strengths for this, even some of those I don't personally support. Not to mention the fact that it was outright stated that this would not be the last mod election, and that it's even possible two people will be promoted from this one.

 

If someone wants to vote for Hina ahead of me, I urge them to do so. The entire point of this election is that the promotion is chosen by the members of this community, so each person should be voting for whomever they believe could do the best work in it.

The number of people who supported you black, cow, and Yui had a ton of overlap. So there's a good chance that 50% might get crossed. 

 

The same people who backed you four also backed the second tier people.