Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft1

Initial Talk

Seeing as the voting stage is 7 days, could you also extend Stage 2-Discussion to 7 days, or higher? If proper discussion is to be carried out before the voting stage, in order the fit in all the necessary points, advantages and disadvantages of the candidate becoming a bureaucrat (and the drama that occurs during an election..), that discussion stage needs to be heightened. if we have a similar amount of candidates as we did in the last election, that is an awful lot of discussion needed.

Discussion is also the most important part of the process - if it does indeed happen before the voting stage, it will finalise users' decisions on how to vote for the candidate. 5 days is not really enough time to do that. -- Brains12 • Talk • 21:34, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

What I didn't understand from the last election was the lack of discussion. I know it is said that discussion can happen in all stages, but I don't think it really works like that. Oddly enough I think the most important part of discussion would be AFTER the vote. It seems to me those who are able to vote are probably a small subset of very active users. These users already know who they would or wouldn't vote for initally based on seeing how that nominated user works in the wiki. So you end up having five people with 20:1 ratios. Who do you pick then? Thats where the debate needs to come in. You might even want to get to the point where you can only vote "support" for one person, not eight. Voting then debating weeds out the weaker choices.

• Nominate
• Vote
• Debate the results of the vote and work towards building a consensus winner.--riceball 21:55, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a good point, Riceball. In that case, discussion stages both sides of the Voting stage would be ideal. The first discussion stage to discuss the good, bad and bureaucratic points of the candidate in order to reach an informed vote; the second discussion stage to discuss what the votes reflect in order to reach a conclusion, comparing all candidates.-- Brains12 • Talk • 21:58, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

This later point is exactly what I want to prevent with the change, because during the last two elections, this is exactly what happened: During the nomination stage, people focused on discussing each individual candidate (good), but did not compare candidates (bad). Then after the voting, people started comparing candidates, but that discussion never went anywhere, since one side could always point to the previous voting stage and say "look this is how people voted, so obviously candidate A is better than B". Had Tanaric not taken the step of withdrawing his candidacy both times, we might still not have consensus / we might have had to call ANet.

With this proposal, people will already compare candidates before the voting stage, which in turn should (hopefully) lead to clearer results. --Xeeron 22:10, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

You will seriously want to consider not allowing a user to vote for almost every single person then. As long as thats possible and happening, there will be no clear cut winner, you will have five 30:1 people. If I vote support for five people, for one job, what does that even mean anymore?--riceball 22:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Two round election proposal

Listening to Riceball point, I propose
Stage 0: Preparation, 3 days.
Stage 1: Nominating candidates, 5 days.
Stage 2: Voting (Approval voting), 7 days.
Stage 3: Discussion (and decision of who deserves to get the second round), 5 days.
Stage 4: Voting (Plurality voting), 5 days.
Stage 5: Deciding winners, (stage 4 is final) 1 day.
Total days: 26. -- Coran Ironclaw 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

The complete proposal can be found here Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/Draft2. -- Coran Ironclaw 18:45, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Amount of edits and time limit

Could we change it to "Regular editors who have made at least 100 edits prior to the begining of the election period (excluding the Guild and User namespaces) under a registered account can add one approval vote or one disapproval vote for each candidate they support by signing their name on candidate subpages." or something like that? Or modify it somehow to avoid all the recent-edits spamming that we saw in the last election?--Fighterdoken 22:14, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, I forgot about that one. Added in now. --Xeeron 23:15, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Anet

The Draft does not deal with the problem of Anet's intervention if no clear consensus is achieved. According to Tanaric, that is wrong since Anet does not really want to deal with that prefering to resign to the position instead. I really don't know how would Anet react to this or if that is benefial or not to the wiki, but sure there are other options than having to rely on Anet. I will try to put some options to be discussed, if the Election arrived to the point that there is no clear consensus on the winner then:

• Bcrats Election: Bcrats decide the winner. (any bcrat participating has no vote/word)
• Admin Election: Brats and sysops vote for a winner. (any admin participating has no vote/word)
• If my two round election proposal is taken into accout, that could be considered final.

-- Coran Ironclaw 23:27, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

ANet has already been contacted about this issue months ago, and they confirmed that they were willing to help out in case of such a situation. See User talk:Gaile Gray/Archive Wiki Topics/March - May 2007#Election process.

I personally consider admins choosing who gets to be an admininistrator a much inferior solution to ANet playing the same role. If for no other reason, because ANet staff theoretically has much stronger motivation to make an unbiased and objective decision than any of us do.

On the other hand, I do agree that it'd be best to keep them away from the wiki's reins for as long as we possibly can, and I do sympathize with Tanaric in that aspect. To avoid the issue getting to the stage where we need ANet's intervention to pick a winner, all there's to be done is to be realistic when discussing what the election process should look like. Even after the discussion stage attempt of the last election (or should I say, especially because of it) I think that such "consensus through discussion" is unrealistic with a system like ours, where there's no one at the top who reads everything and decides who to promote (not counting ANet, of course). I close my eyes, and try to imagine how on earth a debate about "Is Aiiane or Tanaric going to be a better bureaucrat" could ever end conclusively on either side. That's why, so far, and judging by the elections we've already had, I suggest we stick to the voting system. If anyone's got something better and that can realisticially be implemented and expected to work, we're all ears. --Dirigible 00:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why you force people to pick a side and stick with it. And if everyone does, a clear path will usually come about. The problem here is the same users vote for the same people almost like clockwork. If you look at the last voting pattern you can see how this community acts pretty clearly. If they like someone they "support" it, which is all fine and good. But the problem is, this isnt a question of whether they would be fine if elected (yes, probably a dozen people could be fine at the job). You need to think about who is BEST for it. Stop voting for everyone who is able. And if you honestly can't pick one over the other, don't pick. You dont get to vote for everyone running for president, that would be nonsense.--riceball 00:22, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to think about who is best for it? --Rezyk 03:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Because only one will be able to become bcrat? -- Coran Ironclaw 03:29, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Rephrasing: Why is it so important for that one to be "the best" one, as opposed to just being fairly certain that we get someone who is generally good and publicly well-supported? --Rezyk 18:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to select the best choice? Strange question. Why even bother with an election then? Just get all the names together and have a monkey throw darts to pick a winner. I am certain more than one person should be able to do any job an election is for, but there still is probably a best choice given the situation.--riceball 21:11, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Nominate, Discuss pros and cons of people, vote for one. List everyones name on the same page, and have everyone put their support on one name. Simple, and votes actually mean something for once.--riceball 00:26, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

rice, but if there are many options having one vote only would result on a biased result. Because unlike a country we are not so many voters. But you have a point and that is why I proposed the two-level election, the first with many chances to vote then discuss who deserves to arrive the second level (expect 2 or 3 remaining candidates only) then an election with vote for one only which would be final. -- Coran Ironclaw 00:35, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You want a biased result, thats by definition what an election is, "I like you more than I like them". Its a subjective value judgement made by an individual, sometimes right, sometimes wrong. The problem here has been that the election phase hasn't been a true election at all. What it has been is basically a support stage, or a "vote of confidence" stage. Thats why the end result isnt clear. Even presidential elections have 5-6 people running, even though I must admit only two or three have any real chance to win. That point is irrelevant. If you have 10 people running for election, a single vote still works. Yes you might not have a definitive 51% winner. But you will see where the most votes go. Instead of the nonsense of five people getting supported by the same 30 people, which leads to absolutely nothing.--riceball 00:42, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I get your point, but looking at the past elections they do lead to something, maybe not a decisive final winner, but they discard many options and reduce the candidate window, even some discussion after can reduce it even more and after that, an election "vote for one only" would be a lot more clear and unbiased. -- Coran Ironclaw 00:50, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Rezyk here -- this is why I've withdrawn at the end of the last two elections. Arrow's theorem implies that attempting to elect the best person is folly. As long as our elections system is "good enough," I'm okay with that.

That said... I don't think our current elections system is good enough. It selects a good candidate, but it leaves a bitter taste in too many mouths.

—Tanaric 01:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Arrow's theorem is all nice and good, but its not fact or anything, just an interesting conception. Yeah, elections dont find the best person, I dont recall saying they do. But the goal is still in the hope of finding the "best". Bush got elected by people twice, thats enough to make anyone question the point of the ability of masses to choose, and yet its still whats going on here. You either have an election of the people, of the elite, or no election at all. I will still go with an election of the people. I don't have any problem with any of the bcrats currently, and I have no problem with you not being one of them. The concept of the election isnt the problem, the problem is with how its structured now, that the election doesnt lead to an actual decision.

Maybe the system could be one positive vote, as you can also oppose as many people as you want. Kind of mix the two votes together in one process. So the can community can still stand in the way of all the bad choices while also having a very clear decision as to who is "best" to be elected.--riceball 01:57, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

System

• Nominate all names on one page
• Discuss/Debate pros and cons of people on one page (I think having it all on seperate individual pages hurts the overall discussion). List out all names, and then people can add a Pro and Con line under each name in which people can look at and add to like they split up "support/oppose/neutral" in the previous election. All together, all easy to grasp and think about as a whole. Easy to compare everyone between nominated users.
• Vote page. One vote, one page, everyone can clearly see. No need for opposing votes.

I do not see a need to have two votes (a vote of confidence vote and then the final election vote). I think people can just jump right to the election after the debate, and it will be clear who belongs and who doesn't.--riceball 00:57, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

If the concern is about the discussion page becoming overwhelmed with peoples crap conversation, keep that on the talk page of the discussion page. Leave the actual discussion page open to just clear bulletpoints of information.--riceball 01:01, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

My concern is if you realized that in the previous election there was 15 candidates and there was only ~50 voters. And that can become worse in the future. A vote-for-one-only election (Plurality vote) in that situation brings very high issues of spoiler effect and vote splitting. A two round system is used in many countries to prevent that even when they do normally don't have such a high list of candidates. -- Coran Ironclaw 02:38, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I was looking to bring up the issue of keeping the discussions in one page too, so yea, support the idea that the discussions should be held on the elections page, not the candidacy page. The candidacy talk page should be limited to user questions directed at that particular candidate. Answers should be linked back from the main election page if necessary. I would prefer the approval voting system we currently have. If one user votes only for one candidate, then we should just do away with the discussions and select the candidate with the most votes. I can away a two-stage voting but am concerned with how long that might stretch the election period. -- ab.er.rant 02:49, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Time is not really a problem, I added days to the proposal above, in total there are 26 days counting the preparation stage, in the current policy there are a total of 27 days. -- Coran Ironclaw 03:09, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any problems with spoiler effects or splittin effects. Its a wiki, its not the end of the world if someone doesn't get elected. I am [not] even able to vote in these elections :P Let there be a spoiler, let there be a split. People are free to vote where they want. Let there be one who is specifically chosen, and not 10 people chosen. Its an election, to determine a choice, biased is its nature. And if the one vote ends up being 50:50 between two people, have a run off with just those two.--riceball 21:15, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Why I find your last two comments contradictory? (1, 2) Why sticking with a system with issues when we can have one that solves them? -- Coran Ironclaw 22:20, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I dont understand something here. Do you actually think we should have a monkey throw darts at a dart board instead of an election? I was making a point to what I thought was nonsense about not needing to find the best person in any election. If that wasn't what you found contradictory, could you please state it specifically? I think the need for a double election would be rare [by the way].--riceball 22:34, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

No, maybe I was not clear. Rezyk asked why it was so important to select the best, then you ranted with some thing involving a monkey, and now here you say that it is not a problem for you if someone doesn't get elected meaning that it is not so important to be able to choose the best for the position.

On other topic and not related to the previous comment, I ask you why implementing a system (a simple plurality voting with high candidates) with election issues, when we can have a system without them (the issues)? you think the need for a double election would be rare, why that? -- Coran Ironclaw 23:17, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, you misunderstand what I meant by that. When I say that it doesnt really matter who is elected, that is more along the lines of me being sure there are probably more than one person who is able to fill the role. Coming in second doesnt mean you couldnt do the job, it means someone else was viewed at the time as being a better choice, thats all. Its ok if 5 qualified people lose, the point of an election is to make a clear and biased choice towards the best person. The monkey comment also isnt a rant, its a point to why have elections at all if the purpose isnt to find the best choice. Didn't think that was an insane idea.

Thinking about some nutjob winning because all the good choices cancel each other out is a valid concern. I dont think it would happen because of the 100 edit rule, but who knows, maybe there are a bunch of malcontents and immature people on this site who would rather see a bad choice be made. But is that not what an election is about? Everyone's vote being worth the same. Maybe those who accept nominations need to think more carefully about why they are running, and who they are running against (there is the nomination stage - this is also why political parties try to elect one person). I'm not totally against a double vote, I just think it adds needless overhead to a small site of people. Those who can vote, will know who they want to vote for. If you fear the wrong choice being made, you fear the community's intelligence and common sense, as well as saying this site should be ruled by the elite few instead of the community as a whole.--riceball 00:23, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

System Version 2

• Nomination Stage
• Debate Stage (one page, pros and cons clearly listed for everyone- debate on talk)
• Voting Stage (only one support vote, while you can oppose as many nominations as you wish)
• Results Stage

This keeps the system down to one voting stage, while allowing people to oppose as many as they would like, with the goal of preventing a bad choice sneaking in.--riceball 02:08, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is this draft?

I tend to miss things while looking at a diff. Could the creator of this draft provide a human-readable summary of what this proposal would change? —Tanaric 01:28, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Look at Xeeron's comment on Initial Talk. I agree change proposals should have a synthesis of what is changed -- Coran Ironclaw 05:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The description at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections#Proposal to move discussion phase might be what you are looking for. --Xeeron 13:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, thanks Xeeron. —Tanaric 07:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)