Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft 3b

Obviously opposed, as per my reasons given to Xeeron here. *Defiant Elements*  +talk  15:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Can you expand on those reasons here, given that there now is a stage especially for discussion before the voting stage? --Xeeron 11:14, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Even with the dedicated discussion stage, I'd still prefer to see discussion waited more heavily in the process as a whole. I still believe that, on a Wiki, people are less likely to be inclined to participate actively in the discussion phase if that discussion is guaranteed not to play an explicit role in determining the outcome.  The second point I raised on the Draft 3 talk page, about winners being decided by a single, statistically irrelevant (by which I mean that, for example, a relative +1 vote tally is within the margin of error) vote still stands.  Finally, I'm also inclined to agree with Aberrant in that it's generally best to limit the number of distinct voting stages.  Also, just in terms of tying up loose ends, while unlikely, it is possible that the run-off could result in a tie, in which case this proposal does not have a means of resolving the election.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  19:50, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * On another note, I disagree with the assertion that Draft 3 is introducing "choice by the old bureaucrats by stealth." The Bureaucrats would only be deciding in the event that the user base could not decisively make a decision and they would be doing so largely on the basis of the discussion that took place.  The implication that Draft 3 somehow denies the community the right to elect Bureaucrats in favor of a dictatorship (or something dictatorship-esque) is well... underhanded at worst and a mischaracterization of the intent of the policy at best.  [[Image:User Defiant Elements Sig Image.JPG|19x19px]]  *Defiant Elements*   +talk  20:04, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Re: More discussion
 * I don't see how draft 3 or this are any different here. In one, people are going to vote (and take the discussion into account or not), in the other bureaucrats are going to decide (and take the discussion into account or not). In any case, the last elections have shown that there is always a big deal of discussion, just with the wrong timing, with both 3 and 3b should change.
 * Re: +1 vote decision
 * Sure, votes can be close, but it is not one voter making that bureaucrat, it is all the ~35 voters supporting him. Even if you feel that +1 vote is statisitically insignificant, I can garantee you that -1 vote (that is bureaucrats deciding on the person with less support) will never be either.
 * Re: Number of stages
 * 3b would be shorter than 3 almost all the time. Only in case of a tie (which so far we never had) would there be more than 1 voting stage.
 * Re: By stealth and dictatorship
 * Ok, maybe not by stealth, it is actually pretty clear to everyone who reads the proposal. Everyone who has looked at our past elections knows that about half of them are what people call "close", making the bureaucrat decision relevant in a lot of cases. --Xeeron 23:52, 10 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Xeeron, I read D3 as effectivly being about turning power over to the bcrats at first, too. But apparently, that is not what is meant. The bcrats are meant as votecountewrs of a soft vote on the discussion page. DE, you do have an history of advocating dictatorship, so it should be no surprise people assume that is what you want. That's why I've asked for clarification of that point. Backsword 13:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that your original read was correct, there seems to be little other reason for terms like "clear-cut" and "clear winner" to exist in that proposal. And regardly of what is said now, rest assured that after implementation it would only mean that it was absolutely clear enough that the community would stand for no other decision. After all, the current policy uses terms like "based on the guideline" and "general metric" and look how they are subject to interpretation. -- Inspired to ____ 19:11, 13 May 2008 (UTC)