Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-04 bureaucrat election/Auron

Sure. I accept. -Auron 06:16, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Imma be blunt. Your an ass. A huge one. Hell, you even admit it, and yeah, sorry for the NPA. With that said, your an honest, no bullshit person, and even though I disagree with you on some key issues (halo pwns, traps are funny, and anything that ends in "way" is fail) I think your the best mate for the job. But my smoke trap ranger still laughs at your ele, sorry.--Ryudo 06:45, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

So... i hierd u were gonna put up a statement somewhere before the election is over? ~ SCobra 10:58, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Wrong Personality for Role

Auron does come off as a jerk often. Nothing wrong with speaking your mind, and sometimes people here need that fist to the face. But I also get the impression Auron thinks whatever he says turns to gold and is the ONLY "true" way to view something. I may be wrong on that, but thats the sense I get. That over confidence along with the lack of tact make him completely wrong for this position in my opinion.--riceball 19:34, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Funny, I was thinking the fact that he's almost always right about how things should be done and does things regardless of what people think about them makes him the perfect guy for the job. Maybe he does think his way is the only "true" way; I know I've thought that of him in the past. But I'm not going to blame him for thinking that a dictatorship is the only true way to run a wiki any more than I will for him thinking that the only true answer to 2+2 is 4. Overconfidence, imo, is a negligible offense when you're always right. -- Armond Warblade 05:14, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Sure, when you're talking about base-10 arithmetic. But in base-3 arithmetic, 2+2=11. The point that I think Riceball is trying to make is that always being right and "knowing" that you're always right are two different things; the first is a desirable trait, while the latter is arrogance. I haven't decided who I am going to vote for next, and it very well may be Auron because I believe he does possess the right level of objectivity required for the position, but I'd also like to see him use more tact when addressing certain issues. Kokuou 05:50, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

he does what he does and says what he says regardless of who he's saying it to if they're deserving of it. that's what makes a good bcrat--Sum Mesmer Guy 05:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I respect your opinion, Riceball; as wrong as it is :P I do have a high opinion of my... opinion... but I don't make decisions and comments that are arbitrary and unfounded. I have also been swayed in debates. I greatly respect people who debate with logic and support their arguments with evidence - unfortunately, most people on this wiki are expectant of a simple vote to decide things. They don't understand how to debate or how to support their claims. They don't understand consensus.

I'm not a dick to someone if they're honestly trying not to be stupid. If they're being generally retarded, I'm going to treat them that way. If they want me to respect them and listen to their opinion, they have to deserve it first. Plenty of people have done that already; but plenty more haven't. -Auron 08:21, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I am going to have to agree with riceball, I think you have the potential to make a great bcrat Auron, but not yet. Sometimes your a bit.... to much straightforward, this could be a good trait if it is used in moderation. I am afraid I will have to oppose this one, but maybe next time I can support you Auron :o) --Shadowphoenix 15:35, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

So, wait, if you know you're correct, that's automatically arrogant? Guess I'm arrogant for knowing that the shock axe is better than whatever random build the wammo in my party is running. -- Armond Warblade 20:12, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Lol@Armond. Personally i think Auron's one of the best people for the job. I know him more from PvX than anywhere, but i don't think that changes much. Yes i would agree he can be...a bit rough round the edges sometimes. But I'd also say that in most cases you need to be a bit like that. Auron always speaks his mind, provides evidence for any point he makes (where needed at least), and like he, himself, has mentioned, he can have his mind changed if you provide evidence to convince him. Just look here, I see people saying he's not suited to be a b-crat, because of his personality, but, as far as i know, he has never crossed a line he shouldn't have, or even been anywhere near that line. so I'd be all for Auron being a b-crat, unless anyone can provide, good solid evidence why he shouldn't. PheNaxKian (T/c) 22:01, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overconfidence, imo, is a negligible offense when you're always right." This is going on my wall. —Tanaric 04:51, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

i don't really care that auron is right most of the time. he's not a person i would choose to give authority over anyone else. if i'm reading the bcrat responsibilities right, he's gonna be one of the final arbiters for gww user conduct. why would anyone entrust him to be an arbiter of said conduct when practically every comment he makes is rude or arrogant? if i'm reading it wrong, i'll withdraw my opposition vote. --VVong|BA 04:46, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Maybe a help?

look at Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Auron and Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-02 bureaucrat election/Auron --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sum Mesmer Guy (talk).

oops! --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Sum Mesmer Guy (talk).

:P MiraLantis 06:51, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

i thought it was funny... maybe that's just me having a warped and twisted sense of humour...--Sum Mesmer Guy 07:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

VOTE FOR AURON!

or else u fail --Cursed Angel 15:38, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Honestly,

I've never see Auron wrong about something. Not trying to suck dick, it's just from my own observation.- Vanguard 18:46, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Auron once said that Smoke Trap should cost 25 energy and only cause dazed. He also said traps shouldnt be allowed in HA. Does that count?--Ryudo 02:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for saving us the trouble of providing proof, Ryudo! :) -- Armond Warblade 04:38, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

This first part might be misinformation, second sounds just like opinion to me. Doesn't make him wrong.- Vanguard 11:15, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Why I'll be opposing this candidate

I'm sure many will disagree with me; even I myself am not particularly happy with having to do so. But...

I'll be voting against on April 13th because I don't want to see all three our bureaucrats to be so similar in their attitudes and points of view on the the issues that concern this wiki. Having Tanaric and Aiiane as active bureaucrats at the same time already feels like watching two twins at work. I'm worried that with Auron replacing Xeeron, there won't be someone to balance them out, even if only partially. Even if I were to agree with most/all they have to say, I'd still like to have a different voice for that third spot, as more diverse opinions mean a better chance that someone will say what needs to be heard.

I voted for you in the past election, Auron, and I'd probably vote for you again in the next one. But not this time. I'd much rather see Aberrant, Rezyk or Xeeron get the spot for the above reason. --Dirigible 00:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Point of clarification: Xeeron already agrees a lot with Aiiane, and you want a new voice in that spot, so you'd rather not have Auron, but instead Xeeron? (I probably misread it, but that's how it came across. I also can't recall the third bureaucrat off the top of my head.) -- Armond Warblade 04:40, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

No, this reasoning makes a lot of sense. I'm the first to admit that much of my fondness for Aiiane stems from the fact that we often think about things in much the same way.

Rezyk is probably the best choice if you're looking to counterbalance my influence. I'm not going to min/max my voting in order to help him get the seat, but I hope he gets it all the same.

—Tanaric 04:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh, just noticed Rezyk pulled out. I guess the wiki is doomed to die by my hand, or something. —Tanaric 04:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I will withdraw as well, now that I know that several reasonable candidates run, including Aberrant, whom I feel would make a very good bureaucrat. --Xeeron 09:01, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Have to admit i agree with Dirigible (never though i would hear myself say that in this life time ;P) and I also agree with Xeeron, I think my vote will be going to Aberrant, in spite of his hard to spell name, as I think he will counter balance Tanaric and Aiiane to a degree. -- Salome 11:21, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I probably don't have to mention, but with two open seats, this reasoning is outdated. Dirigible etc obviously knows this, I'm just stating it for anyone coming in late. -Auroñ 09:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Sig

His signature is black and too generic. Moush 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

lol wiki. ur so silly auron —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.35.91.2 (talk • contribs) at 05:09, April 10, 2008 (UTC).

WOOOOOOOO AURON!

Shame I still don't have enough contributions to vote. --71.229.204.25 09:01, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

And your an IP =p (IP's can't vote =s) unless you have an actual account over here to. But i still don't ahve enough conts. either =s. ~PheNaxKian Talk 10:56, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

couldnt be as bad as bush......for auron!--Raph Talky 00:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

@salome

Except... this isn't a Request for Adminship? -Auron 00:49, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's a request to be a bureaucrat, which does, as far as i understand it, fall under the wider definition of being a wiki Admin person. Either way my point stands mate, you have a sound logical mind which i respect, but you have about the same amount of tact as a brick through a window, which i think is a major drawback to any potential bureaucrat. This isn't an attack mate, as i said before I think you always have sound reasoning, i just don't think you are great with people. -- Salome 00:54, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I'd have to say it doesn't matter in the least. A bureaucrat's role is that of an impartial third party; someone who doesn't take sides in a debate. They're basically the judge and jury when it comes to arbitration - tact doesn't matter for those roles. I'd communicate mostly with the other bureaucrats on the case at hand, and post my usual lengthy take on the case, and that's that. Bureaucrats don't exist to be nice; they exist to be fair.

If this were a RfA, your argument would hold water. Sysops are in daily contact with other users, and have a much bigger potential for abuse - the ability to block users. Although I'd never abuse the sysop powers, most people feel that I'm not carebear enough for the job. -Auron 01:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would ever accuse you of being a carebear but at the same time i don't agree with you that tact is unneeded as a bureaucrat. For an example see the events surrounding J Kougar; Aiiane (a very thorough and level headed bureaucrat IMHO) made one tactless comment which contributed greatly to that situation spiraling into crazy land. I'm not raising this to attack Aiiane, just to highlight the fact that a bureaucrat being tactless can make a bad situation worse in situations which are already a focus of much heated debate. -- Salome 01:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Her comment wasn't made as a bureaucrat. Her comment was made as a user. There's a huge difference. -Auron 01:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That's just it, her comment as a user made her unable to have an effective contribution to that discussion as a bureaucrat. If i scan down your user page alone i could probably point out several people you have offended with your blunt comments which could then be hauled up in the future by them as proof that you have a grudge against them or are not impartial in some manner etc... and it's not like you are gonna change who you are once you become a bureaucrat, not that i personally would want you to change. What I'm saying is that one can not separate the user from the bureaucrat as regardless your actions will effect both roles and i just think your style of interaction with others would/could be problematic in regards to sensitive issues in that i think your tactless approach could be used against you quite easily to prevent you from being able to contribute to arbitration's like it did to Aiiane. -- Salome 01:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Er... flawed logic ftw? Comments made as a user and comments made as a bureaucrat are two different things. Anyone who pretends otherwise is sorely misinformed. If someone thinks a comment she made as a user was made as a bureaucrat, they merely have to ask for clarification; however, Kougar wasn't there to actually get anything done, he was there because he wanted to piss people off.

Kougar didn't get riled up because of what she said; he'd have gotten riled up at anything she said. He was an attention whore, and would do anything in his power to keep an unending stream of attention flowing to himself; Aiiane could have said anything and the reaction would have been the same. I'm sure you've read the first Kougar archive; it was exactly the same. No matter the response, he got riled up. Using his reaction as a basis for judging how well someone acts is very poor logic. -Auron 02:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

My logic is sound, you're just being slightly short sighted in this instance. Regardless of what the policy is or what your opinion is, the simple fact remains that a bureaucrats actions as a user does impact upon their ability to fulfill their role as a bureaucrat, as seen with Aiiane as stated supra. As a bureaucrat you will in all likelihood, when in cases like kougar's, only be dealing with the trolls of the wiki, thus his antics are just as good an example as any, as to how a troll will try and handle that situation. Simply put her actions as a user did impact upon her ability to then act as a bureaucrat in that, if i am not mistaken, she had to abstain from the decision making process in that instance so as to keep it impartial. All i am saying is that i can see the same chain of events happening again if you were a bureaucrat and I stand by it. You are more than welcome to disagree with me on this but as a lawyer i know it is not only essential for a judge and jury to be impartial, but to be seen by the public to be impartial in their judgments. You're lack of tact raises questions on the latter point for me as i think their is a high likelihood of instances where you will have to abstain due to your comments made as a user giving rise for the troll in question to claim a lack of impartiality or victimization or some other such nonsense. -- Salome 03:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

"i think their is a high likelihood of instances where you will have to abstain due to your comments made as a user giving rise for the troll in question to claim a lack of impartiality or victimization or some other such nonsense." I don't hate a troll simply because I call him out; if his argument is that I'm somehow biased against him because I called him a troll, I'm afraid he'd simply be wrong. And more importantly, he's the criminal; since when did we let criminals come into the courtroom and tell the judge how to do his job?

I agree that comments made as a user might make the job as Bureaucrat harder; but it won't make it impossible, nor will said comments interfere with my ability to be impartial (which is the most important thing to consider). In fact, if I thought a user was a complete asswipe from the beginning, how would my comments before an arbitration change my views on him in the least? Either I'll be objective or I won't be, my pre-arbitration comments will have little to no effect on that.

The lack of tact might make people think I hate them. I'm blunt and I don't care about beating around the bush; I've never favored that tactic, and tbh, that tactic doesn't help a bureaucrat in the least. Again, I'll restate, since you didn't counter it last time; for bureaucrats, fairness is a more important trait than kindness. You don't always have to pick one or the other, but tbh, I'm one of the most fair and objective users on the wiki; you can go around all you want and settle for less objective bureaucrats simply because they're nicer, but remember you're sacrificing the most important bureaucrat quality for something that isn't. -Auron 03:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

To answer your 3 points above:

1. We don't let judges, who have called the criminal an arse beforehand, judge those cases due to the very real and probable chance of their being a mistrial and any verdict made, being thrown out.

2. you said that your pre-arbitration comments will have little to no effect on your ability to be impartial and I do believe that, but that's not the point. I never said you wouldn't be impartial, I said your lack of tact could make the community think you weren't being impartial even when you were, thus drawing the whole arbitration process into question. As i said before, it is not only important for one in a position of judgment to be impartial, but to also appear to be impartial at the same time, which i think you're lack of tact with people may hinder.

3. My statements were never about you being nice. Take Tanaric for example, i never thought he was particularly nice, but he did always have tact. I also agree you are one of the fairest people ive met on the wiki, but i can't objectively state that I think you are any more fair than some of the other bureaucrat candidates and they don't have the downside of lacking any form of tact.

-- Salome 03:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Voting Comments

→ moved from Editing Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/2008-04 bureaucrat election/Auron

Support

--Cursed Angel votes Auron 00:10, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Bcrats need intelligence more than tact. Lord Belar 00:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Yayray for Auron! Dark

Oppose

Great fella with good judgment skills but lacks anything even approaching tact and I honestly think an admin at least needs some modicum of tact. -- Salome

Auron is my good and excelent friend, but someone who likes to discuss with such logical arguments as "My comment was a dismissal of yours, not a reply in kind" isn't really fit to be a bureaucrat. Erasculio 13:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

That was, at best, four months ago. You might do well to look through his recent contributions. -- Armond Warblade 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I believe that Auron has the potential to become a great bureaucrat, if he worked on it. His current way at handiling situations is not quite right for the position. I could see how him being blunt could help him as a bcrat, but there is a way for you to be blunt and not be rude in the process. If Auron could adopt this blunt but not rude attitude, then yes I could vote for him; but at the current state I will oppose. --Shadowphoenix 15:22, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

He's been a lot less so lately. -- Armond Warblade 02:00, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Ture, but I would like to observe him for the next two months (next bcrat election) to see how is behavior is; then I could possibly vote for him in the next election; but at current I will oppose. --Shadowphoenix 02:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree. I also believe that a bureaucrat should be able to be blunt and polite at the same time. I'm opposing (albeit not vehemently) this time, but I may change my vote next time depending on how he handles himself from here on out (regardless of whether he wins or not this time). Kokuou 11:02, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Reason for oppose.

1. I can't see Auron solving a feud between two otherwise prodsuctive users without offending and possibly driving off at least one of them.
2. Of the serious candidates, Auron is the only one I could see getting banned. And how would that look?

Backsword 09:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

sexy? --Cursed Angel 17:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree to backsword. Some people refer to this as "blunt", but this always made me undecided whether to support Auron or not. I do not think such behaviour should become acceptable. But I would like to give him a chance to keep himself in check. It is a good time to try this, as GW1 is basically done and this can be seen as a testing run for GW2. --Longasc 06:20, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

(and this is the reason I did not vote support/oppose, I am still neutral on this). --Longasc 02:26, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

A little off topic, but...

Do you guys count contribs by hand, or is there somewhere special where I can say " oh, I have 100 contribs". So, the question is... can I vote pls? NUKLEAR IIV 21:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

usallly the sort page by # of....or if its little by hand 68.151.27.108 21:35, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, you can help the count process by using the "show next 50/100/200/9000 contributions". But yeah, mostly counting one by one in case it's too close to 100. (added) By example, you have "less than 50 on main talk, one on gww talk, 3 on image" so the total is "less than 50 + 3 + 1 = less than 100" :) --Fighterdoken 21:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

i have over nine thousand!!!!!111oneoneeleven - Y0_ich_halt 12:19, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Booo. thanks anyway, mate. NUKLEAR IIV 21:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

I have about 2000, yay me! -- Salome 17:34, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi

I voted twice and nobody noticed ;o 69.248.232.88 03:06, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

IPs can't vote. — ク Eloc 貢 16:07, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

They can if they remember to log in. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 19:26, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

OMG SOMEONE VOTED TWICE THAT RENDERS THE VOTES INVALID AND SO WE NEED TO RESTART THE ELECTION. -- Armond Warblade 17:53, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Without a doubt. Elections are serious business. -- NUKLEAR IIV 19:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)