Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft2

Change Log
Total days: 25 (27 total days in the current policy) -- Coran Ironclaw 00:56, 13 January 2008 (UTC) -- Coran Ironclaw 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Explanation of the two round election on the introduction.
 * Stage 1: Changed timeframe from 7 to 5 days.
 * Stage 2: Changed name to "Approval/Disapproval voting".
 * Stage 2: Changed the 100 edits restriction to apply "before the start of the election (stage 0)."
 * Stage 3: Changed name to "Deciding finalists for second round" and rewording. The role is still discussion but it is not intended to obtain consensus for just one final winner.
 * Stage 3: Changed timeframe from 7 to 5 days.
 * Stage 4: Changed name to "Plurality voting". Changed role to be a second round plurality voting with final decision over the winner.
 * Stage 4: Changed timeframe from 3 to 5 days.
 * Stage 1: Changed phrase "General discussion should go on its talk page" with "It is strongly encouraged to discuss about the candidate actions and behavior on its talk page".
 * Stage 3: Added "however it is still encouraged to discuss about particular candidates on their talk page".


 * Sure. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  23:50, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus?
so? This have been up for a week, I posted the corresponded link in policy page, also I posted on RFC. If no one objects I will proceed to acept this policy change. -- Coran Ironclaw 00:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Woah, let's not accept this just yet. Lack of consensus against it doesn't mean there is consensus supporting it. We still have a month until the next election so there is still time for discussion. -- Brains12  • Talk  • 14:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm mostly neutral about this, so maybe try poking the users who were worked up over the previous election results? -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png|sig]] 14:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I am generally ok with this, but there are a few details which I would change, like adding in an explicit encouragement to discuss candidates in stages 1 and 3 as well as a clarification that the 100 edits need to be done before stage 0. Also some general clean-up. --Xeeron 14:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * @Brains12, actually there are like 10 days until the next election. And, if no ones objects then no one has a strong disagreement, which is enough in my point of view to accept it.
 * @Xeeron, the clarification of the 100 edits before stage 0 was added since this draft was born. I am adding an explicit encouragement to discuss candidates in stages 1 and 3. I would like to leave the general clean-up to another proposal change, since that could rise some discussions about wording and interpretation and I would like to have this accepted before the next election starts.
 * Any other issue? -- Coran Ironclaw 16:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Ha, oops. I looked at the date Biro's term ended :P
 * And I'm the same as ab.er.rant and Xeeron, I don't have any problems with this. -- Brains12  • Talk  • 16:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * No comments means nothing, not consensus. I'm going to read it through more carefully before I can comment on the proposal itself. - anja  [[Image:User Anja Astor sig icon.png|talk]] 17:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Actually it means apathy which is kind of sad, and the reason a pressure was needed, now you are commenting which is a good thing. -- Coran Ironclaw 17:17, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

So reading over the thing up top again, I'm a tad confused. Most I agree with, except for the part that says "It is strongly encouraged to discuss about the candidate actions and behavior on its talk page". Does this mean that comments can now go on the election page? or are they still confined for talk page only? I support my statement that they go onto the talk page only. &mdash;  ク  Eloc  貢  21:57, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It's referring to the candidacy talk page, not the elections page's talk page. -- ab.er. rant [[Image:User Ab.er.rant Sig.png| ]] 01:07, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The wording "discuss the candidates actions and behavior" strikes me as odd. It might be part of what's discussed, but isn't the purpose to discuss each candidate's "quality" as a bureaucrat? If all I would discuss on Tanaric's election talk page is his way of making everything into a joke, I'm not really discussing whether he should be a bcrat or not, in my opinion. (No offense Tanaric, I just picked a name :) ) I'm also thinking we should move from strongly encouraged to "discussion is the obvious choice". Discussion should take place. - anja   08:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I tend to see plurality voting as one of the worst ways to implement preference voting...but I think its main flaws have been covered enough elsewhere that I won't repeat it now. It's always possible we might happen to not run into any of its problematic features. Anyways, my main concern is that a lack of subjectivity in the final vote here makes the process a little too susceptible to sockpuppetry/meatpuppetry issues. --Rezyk 03:43, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Days
There's a reson the current version uses seven day phases. That's a wekk, and many people are on weekly shedules, and may only have time for the wiki one, say, weekends. Additionally, with phase 4 changed, what would be decided in stage three that couldn't be done in the current stage 3? Backsword 08:54, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The most important part (the approval/disapproval voting) is the same. On stage 1, if you intend to be bcrat, then 5 days should be more than enough to nominate yourself. On stage 3, on the current state is to obtain just one final winner within 7 days, now 5 days should be enough to select the finalists. That does not eliminate anyone from participating on candidate's discussion, cause it is there since stage 1. The only part remaining is the stage 4, in my opinion 5 days are enough, but if you think it needs 7 days I won't object. About the last question, nothing? I don't get the point. -- Coran Ironclaw 21:29, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The problem with the current election system is that stage three can't work. That's why there'd be support for changing it. But if 7 days is not enough to get concensus on a single issue, how would 5 days be enough to get consensus on every candidate, with regard to them making it to the second round? Backsword 04:07, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you are getting it wayback, the issue is the same but on this draft there is no need to obtain "just one" final absolute winner. It is a lot easier to select the two or three candidates for the final round than the total winner. -- Coran Ironclaw 21:00, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Combine Merits of Both Voting Stages into One Stage
The election had two problems. One, same 50 people voted for five people. Makes the selection of a winner basically impossible. Secondly, discussion was almost non-existant.

There really is no reason for two voting stages in my opinion. You dont need to debate who is worthy of being in the pool of "good" choices, and then debate and vote again out of those choices. I personally believe there should be one voting period, and cut out the redundant stage. The voting would be a mixture of the two voting stages. You get to vote only once in support of someone, and you get to vote negative against as many people as you want. This will allow everyone to keep the crap choices down, while also narrowing down the winner into an easy and clear path. There is no reason why one person needs to support ten people running for one position. Make up your main and pick who you think is best. This will also allow each stage to be 7 days again.

I am fine with using individual nomination pages for the debate, but I really do think the discussion would be helped with a centeralized page as well, listing established and valid PROs and CONs for each person on one page. Allowing everyone to look over one consolidated page and really think about who is the best option.-- riceball   21:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest you write up a formal proposal, as I think this might be a better basis for biscussion. Backsword 04:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Do we really need three drafts? -- Brains12  • Talk  • 15:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)