Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2008-06 bureaucrat election

From Guild Wars Wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search

Take note that the election policy has been changed since the previous election. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 02:08, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


Is it me or are there a awefull lot of elections happening? Also why only 6 months? Why not a year? Or permanent if they want it.? --The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DBZVelena (talk).

I would suggest looking at the policy draft talk page (Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft 3) to see the reasoning provided by the various users who implemented the current elections policy. The answers to all of your questions are on the talk pages, you need only to look for them. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 16:58, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
As to why it's not permanent, it's because ArenaNet doesn't want it to be. See Guild Wars Wiki:About. -- User Sig.png 02:00, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not the only one who saw this and was like, "uh, already?"- VanguardUser-VanguardAvatar.PNG 16:51, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
this shit is repeating itself every month? --Blood Anthem User Blood Anthem Sig.jpg 00:13, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
GWW:ELECT On the current schedule, every 2 months. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 02:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
evry two monts are much --Frozen Archer 01:11, 15 June 2008 (UTC)


So...Did we ever come to a conclusion about how we decide a winner in close run elections? As at the moment it looks like we have 4 candidates who all have roughly the same amount of support. -- Salome User salome sig.png 23:32, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Read stage 4 of the current election policy. Go to Aiiane's Talk page (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 23:50, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
oh cool,so its just a direct vote tally, with most votes wins. So that would mean at the moment it would be Tanetris at 34, Anja at 27, Aiiane at 25 and brains at 23. Was still a very interesting election with 4 great people running. -- Salome User salome sig.png 00:06, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
The discussion phase has failed. There was not any extra discussion that wouldn't have taken place before voting under the previous policy. It's as if we have the same policy as before, but taking out the after-voting discussion phase and going with a simple vote count winner. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 00:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it has failed. We had a discussion, and everyone was allowed to discuss as much as they wanted. The fact people chose not to have long discussions lasting for days is, IMO, more a sign that this entire subject doesn't really deserve all that much attention than a matter of needing month-long discussions to rewrite a policy that streamlined the elections. Erasculio 00:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
If it doesn't deserve so much discussion, why have previous elections been discussed so much after the voting stages? In my opinion, there is not enough to go on before the voting stage to choose a winner, and discussing the qualities of each candidate can be done at any time. Yes, people are allowed to discuss, but the same was true for all elections. All the new policy has effectively done is reduced it to a vote-count winner and changed the time periods for each phase. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 00:45, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"So much"? Hardly. Rather, for so long. And IMO, the answer for that is clear - because no one knew how to decide who should win. See how, until the last election, there still wasn't a way to decide who should win, and it was decided by Tanetris, not by the community. Now we have a way to decide who will win - and now we also got a considerably shorter discussion. Coincidence? I hardly think so. Erasculio 00:50, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Personally, I think discussion is better than a straight vote. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 00:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry brains i dont agree. The discussion was longer before as everyone would just bitch and moan based on who got the most votes and try and argue for their candidate, due to the confusion of how someone was elected. Now that the confusion has been removed with it being a straight vote tally, their is less reason for people to moan about things and to get into pointless arguments that go round in circles.Finally it is decided by the community properly not just by people pulling out and who could shout the loudest, longest. (also i'm quite aware i was guilty of a fair bit of that in the last election but that was due to the confusion of the system,which has now effectively been nullified) -- Salome User salome sig.png 01:21, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
And you don't see a vote as being who shouts the loudest? The wiki isn't a democracy, it shouldn't be a simple vote count. We should be putting forth arguments for each candidate, a la RFA. In fact, if we had a position "above" the group of bureaucrats to decide on an RFA-style bureaucrat election, it would be easier to change elections to such a style. Rather than going on numbers, we would go on the characteristics, traits, thoughts, logic, and intelligence of each candidate; likewise, we would get reasoned oppositions. -- that's better than going by numbers created by those who may or may not vote for the sake of voting (and not because of the candidate), or by those perhaps not fully aware of what they're voting for. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 01:32, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I don't see the discussion as being failed, I just see this particular election being different in that we had a pool of candidates that most everyone is very familiar with, and there were not that many questions or points to cover that haven't been covered in other elections/RfA's. Take note of Warrior kronos' discussion page, there is quite a bit of discussion there as he is the 'new kid on the block' where elections are concerned. --Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 02:22, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
"Rather than going on numbers, we would go on the characteristics, traits, thoughts, logic, and intelligence of each candidate; likewise, we would get reasoned oppositions. -- that's better than going by numbers" - actually no, it's not better, simply because it has not worked. See the previous election (in which the discussion was just moving in circles), see the election between Xeeron and Tanatic, and etc. No one is preventing the community from discussing the candidates, just as no one is stopping you from beginning such discussion yourself. Yet the fact that no one has actually tried to do so is a very good hint about how such discussions are, in the end, pointless. Erasculio 04:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
That's a fallacy Brains. Moving the target is no solution. In this case, having new user group X pick bcrats just pushes the issue onto deciding who becomes an X. Backsword 08:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)
It was just a passing suggestion to appease the new situation -- bureaucrats being determined by arguments rather than votes. Whether or not that would be decided a new user group, the group of sysops, th rest of the bureaucrats, or whatever; it's not particularly relevant when brainstorming some idea -- the point of the matter was it may be a better idea having bureaucrats chosen on arguments concerning their merits (or failures) rather than a simple vote. I doubt that's feasible here though, so I won't be holding onto the idea. --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 12:55, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

On a related note, this time the numbers are much clearer than last time. Even with the old policy, I doubt there would be much discussion about who won now. --Xeeron 13:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure, 34 and 27 aren't that great a difference. -- Salome User salome sig.png 13:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Hmmm, who knows. I am glad we will not have to find out though. --Xeeron 13:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's substantial enough given the total number of votes.--Wyn's Talk page Wynthyst 13:38, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm just so glad that theirs not gonna be a pointless debate about it after the fact this time. yay! -- Salome User salome sig.png 13:39, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
Even if there was a huge debate this time, I suspect it would be resolved far more easily than Tanetris v. Auron, because Tanetris and Auron had totally contrasting styles, and User A absolutely rejected style A, while the opposite was true for User B. Now, we have two users whose styles of editing and settling disputes are fairly similar, and style B would be acceptable to User A, because they're very similar. Calor Talk 17:35, 29 June 2008 (UTC)


Does anyone believe it's not Tanetris? Calor Talk 00:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Nay. Tanetris it shall be. Backsword 02:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Deciding winners[edit]

This makes Tanetris the winner of the June 2008 bureaucrat election. Any objections? poke | talk 00:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I can't really think of anything to argue with that. --TalkPeople of Antioch 01:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
it's rather embarrassing that i got the worst, but hey, i never expected to win, i'll just do it again--Sum Mesmer GuyTalk to me NOW!! DO IT! contribs 06:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
"Any objections?" Would it matter? --User Pling sig.png Brains12 \ talk 08:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
It could be, that I counted wrong, so... :P poke | talk 10:50, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like we have clear winner :D -- User indochine dsk tree.png Indochine talk 16:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding just another yes here so the "I agree" camp looks more impressive. --Xeeron 17:17, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
So, who promotes him when? Calor Talk 17:20, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
any bcrat promotes him at the end of this stage--Sum Mesmer GuyTalk to me NOW!! DO IT! contribs 19:18, 30 June 2008 (UTC)