Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft 3

Since someone will invariable ask me why I believe that these changes should be implemented, I figured I would open up the discussion by outlining my reasons.

The only regularly scheduled elections are to fill bureaucrat seats, with a term length of 1 year.

• I realize this is an odd change since it doesn't really fit in with the purpose of the proposal, but it's an important one nonetheless. Based on the anecdotal evidence that I've accumulated, an election every 2 months seems to breed increasingly high levels of apathy among prospective voters; in some cases, it can even lead to an aversion to elections altogether. Given the nature of elections, the ideal would be that every user was motivated enough to spend sufficient time to formulate an informed opinion before making a final decision about who they want to vote for/against. Thus, a trend which causes users to be less motivated is detrimental to the elections process itself. So, given that I see the cause of this trend as being the sheer frequency with which elections are held, I believe that it's important to lengthen the time between elections. This is additionally useful because elections tend to be times of high stress and higher drama which can drive some users insane (or even be detrimental to the wiki)

Stage 3: Deciding winners

• Anyone who has chatted with me about elections knows that while I may be opposed to elections in general, I am absolutely dead-set against elections which are decided by merely plurality. As the title of the MetaWiki article that I link on my user page suggests, voting is a tool, it should never be the basis for making important decisions. Some users don't have a good grasp of what it takes to be a bureaucrat, others are simply uninformed, and still others treat elections as a popularity contest. If I'm making a decision, any kind of decision really, which should I consider more carefully, the opinion of a well-informed, rational person who carefully outlines the relative merits of the possible options, or the baseless (or even fallacious) opinion of another person? The same holds true of elections. A discussion acknowledges the merits of a well-thought out opinion, mere voting often does not. I'm not saying that the plurality system has necessarily yielded poor winners; I'm merely saying that it's not the best system.

Stage 4: Final judgment

• Aside from the removal of the obviously problematic final judgment stage outlined in the current policy, I've gone a step further and vested the bureaucrats not up for re-election with the power to do a couple different things if stage 3 does not yield a clear winner. The most controversial far and away is going to be the authority granted to bureaucrats in this policy to actually make a final decision. Let me start by addressing the obvious problem I think people are going to have with this clause. Yes, theoretically, the current bureaucrats could be biased in favor of the incumbent bureaucrat and could theoretically make an essentially unilateral decision to allow him to remain in power. My response is that if you even suspect that the bureaucrats would allow themselves to be so swayed by bias, then your election system is flawed (given that ArbComm requires that bureaucrats have the ability to render themselves essentially impartial). I honestly can't imagine someone who was respected enough by the community that he/she was elected to the position would actually abuse their authority in such a manner. Now, that said, why do I think they should have the authority? Simply put, the current bureaucrats are in the best position to fully understand (as much as possible) who would make a good bureaucrat and who would not, what qualities are most important in a bureaucrat, and which are not. And if the community is able to reach a consensus that a different kind of bureaucrat should be elected (say one who represents a different cultural view than the incumbent or the two others, then the Bureaucrats will not be involved in the final decision, it will already have been made). Additionally, the bureaucrats are the users that have (theoretically) been chosen to make just these kinds of decisions. We elect Bureaucrats for, among other reasons, their ability to be impartial, level-headed, and rational, and we trust that they will act in a manner which reflects consensus. If we didn't think that, we wouldn't vote for them.

*Defiant Elements* +talk 04:39, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Support

I support this proposal, and for those who believe I might be impartial, I would have no problems with it no matter whether it went into effect after my current term or before. I would assume though, as it makes sense, that existing bureaucrat terms would remain unchanged and only newly elected bureaucrats would sit for the new term duration. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 07:37, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this would not apply retroactively, so the current bureaucrat terms would not change. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:32, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't have a huge speech to give about this, just that I'm in general agreement with Aiiane. I think it's a good idea to move from what is, effectively, vote=result, to vote=general opinion + discussion=result. -- Brains12 \ Talk 14:35, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I like this proposal too, and I support it. I don't know if this will "solve the problems" we have had with elections, but a change is needed, and this might be it. I also like the lengthening of the bcrat term, elections happen far too often and cause far too much drama to keep me interested. I don't care about them anymore. - anja 14:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add my vote of support for this proposed change, but would like some clarification on the timing of elections. I would like to see the 3 bureaucrat seat terms staggered, so that at all times there will be at least one incumbent in place. This was not defined very well. While this may appear to not change the election frequency much from what it is currently, I believe it is important to maintain some sense of stability.-- Wynthyst 15:16, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Elections would of course still be staggered, only one bureaucrat would be up for re-election at any given time. There would just be fewer annual elections since their terms would each be a year respectively. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) I also support this change. It seems like extending the bcrats terms from 6 months to 1 year would better suit there role imo. I was thinking the other day that there are about 4 elections each year, which imo is a bit much. --Shadowphoenix 13:53, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Under the current system, there's an election every other month. Under this section, there would be one election every 4 months. *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:54, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Really? I must have counted wrong :P *counts again* huh your right it is every other month, that makes me have a Bigger support. Seven elections a year yikes! --Shadowphoenix 14:04, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

/facepalm Lord Belar 23:24, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

I already had a V8 today Belar :P. Anywho, seven elections are far to many imho and I still support this change (gosh it sounds like im reapeating myself :P) --Shadowphoenix 00:43, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

12 months. Election every 2 months. 12/2=6. Not 7. :P Lord Belar 00:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeeeaaaahhhh, I counted Jan. twice for some reason :P --Shadowphoenix 00:59, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Timing of discussion/final decision

This proposal tries to bring an element of discussion into the voting process, making the election less a simple counting of numbers are more an exchange of arguements. While that is a worthy goal, I predict it will fail. Why is that?

Different users here have their own views of what constitutes a good bureaucrat. Since those views need not be the same, 2 users can, fully knowing all needed information, both vote for their "best" candidate and still vote for 2 different candidates. The only way discussion could align the votes is by aligning everyones definition of a good bureaucrat - something that is unlikely to ever happen, much less in 7 days. That is the reason why currently, after seeing the votes, we are debating the winner of the vote, not the best bureaucrat. Simply because it is feasable to achieve consensus on the first, but not on the second.

How would this proposal work in practise? Whenever 2 or more candidates get almost equal support in stage 2, discussion in stage 3 would not achieve consensus. To get on with the vote, we would either use the sitting bureaucrats clause (which should not be the standard way of picking new bureaucrats imo) or simply hold a second ballot, then use the second ballot to decide the winner of the vote (just like we are currently using the first vote).

All that does not mean discussion has no place, but why hold discussion after people have voted, when you could hold it before, to try and influenze others in their voting, like in virtually all elections. Stating that we should find consensus on the best candidate (instead of the winner of the election) in stage 3 is asking for the impossible. --Xeeron 11:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

You point out the flaws you see in this proposal. That is all fine and dandy, but you're comparing this policy against what you see as ideal. Now, because people have different opinions and are naturally argumentative, an "ideal" policy really can't be reached; we can only get close. DE's proposal comes close, better than the current one. There are still a few areas that can be improved upon and discussed more, such as final decisions and the transition. Tharkun has posted three feasible solutions in the short/semi-long-term ii this is implemented. As for consensus, not all of the decision is going to be based upon debate. If a user has a great debater arguing for them, but has twenty less support votes than another user, I highly doubt the first user would be nominated because they are supported by a well-spoken person. And friendly casual discussion between voters before the voting phase is good, with a bit more discussion sorting out the race at the end. Calor 02:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not an ideal I am comparing it to, but some realistic changes. Like placing the discussion phase in front of the voting phase. Or writing that there will be a runners off vote, instead of pretending that discussion will be to solve that stage in almost all cases. --Xeeron 09:30, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Discussion can be used successfully in almost all cases. While your discussions may not be particularly effective, other people can and will come to a rational agreement. Lord Belar 20:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is not a large sample, but our own election history speaks against that. --Xeeron 22:31, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree with Xeeron here. I like to gravitate away from election discussions because everyone is driving around in circles. Calor 00:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Let's say we attempt discussion as the primary means of determining winners and it works perfectly. Following voting, there's no clear consensus, but a clear winner emerges during the discussion stage. Excellent, no? Now, let's say that a clear winner doesn't emerge during discussion. The Bureaucrats don't feel comfortable deciding a winner so they reset the clock on discussion and it works. Again, excellent. In either case, we've not only found the "winner of the vote" we've done a much better job of actually finding the "best Bureaucrat." Now, let's say that discussion fails in both instances and the Bureaucrats decide to hold a run-off (for arguments sake, we'll say that it's decided that the run-off will decide the winner by simple plurality). What have we lost? The winner has been decided by the same system that is already in place, which is the system that, by default (in arguing against this proposal) you are nominally supporting. No harm, no foul, right? And remember, this doesn't supplant discussion that occurs before-hand. If the discussion that occurs before voting plays a role in leading to a clear consensus during voting (or during the secondary discussion phase for that matter), then all well and good, the winner has already been decided, no need for further discussion/run-offs/decisions by Bureaucrats. And what about Bureaucrats making the decision? It's not the standard way of picking winners, but, if after (let's say) an extended discussion period and a run-off, there's still no clear winner, then, in my opinion, the winner should not be determined because he or she had a +1 relative support/oppose ratio in the run-off. Personally, if the winner is chosen based on a decision by the Bureaucrats saying that candidate X is more qualified than candidate Y (even if candidate Y got one more vote in the run-off), I'd be more confident than if the winner was chosen based on that +1 relative ratio. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:46, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Two Issues

First, can we add something about false/joke/sarcastic nominations? I think an election shouldnt be an opportunity to insult other users or waste peoples time with weak humor. But maybe I am taking it too seriously. I just think its slowly getting worse election after election.

Secondly, I also still have the same problems with the stage system these elections tend to take. Observing past elections you can only come out with the conclusion that the system is totally broken. Having bcrats resolve it basically isnt a solution in my book because its as if nothing else ever happened. Debate should come before the vote, but that just doesnt seem to happen here. People seem to have their minds mostly made up already before the vote is started simply by knowing what the user is like. Seperate talk pages to navigate through also doesnt make it easy to compare. I would still recommend some kind of consolidated page with talking points PRO and CON for easy access.

The voting stage is broken because everyone votes support for like 5-6 people at a time. Thats complete nonsense. Last election we had 3-4 people who had 50 positive votes, all of the same users basically. What do you do with that? How do you pick from that? How do you even debate with that? I seriously think people need to be forced to pick who they think is the best, with one vote and leave it at that. While you may think 3-5 people might be good at it, you have to think one is probably better than the rest, even if by a little. Others have had a problem with the single vote notion because it has those infamous voting effects. Like two good nominations canceling out each other and a crap nomination winning. Yeah, that could be a problem. So why not allow people to have one positive vote and all the negative votes they want. The crap choice might have a bunch of supports, but also a ton of negative votes. So all in the scope of one stage of 7 days, you can weed out the crap choices while also having people point in a direction of best choices. Might not be perfect, but I think its better than the current way that points to nothing.

But thats my idea, it failed previously, it will no doubt fail again. But figured I could taint another talk page with it. Either way, I think people need to seriously rethink the format here, because it just does not work currently.

And just as a side note, there is no such thing as a perfect voting system. Yes there are problems with plurality voting, but there are problems in every voting system, all can be broken when the people abuse it. The strenght of the voting system comes from the people who use it.--riceball 01:54, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your 3rd paragraph, while that's certainly a feasible suggestion, I don't think it has a place in this proposal. If I recall correctly, one of the three proposals currently floating around incorporates something similar, but "fixing" that aspect isn't what this proposal is geared towards, and I rather see this passed before moving on to another aspect that might complicate the matter further. So, that said, I don't see that as strictly relevant to this discussion, because it would not be mutually exclusive to have one proposal which made the discussion aspect more important, and another which changed the voting system.

Regarding your 2nd paragraph, I don't see why someone couldn't create their own PROs vs. CONs list and post it on the pertinent election talk page... maybe I'm forgetting a discussion where you proposed that idea and people didn't like it? And having Bureaucrats resolve an election (remember, this assumes that they believe that neither a a run-off -- which could potentially implement a system whereby voters would have to choose only one of a few candidates to support -- nor continued discussion would break the deadlock) isn't throwing everything else out the window. When a Bureaucrat reads an RfA, they interpret the votes, look at the number of votes, etc., and then come to a conclusion. Is that the same as if the RfA had never taken place and the Bureaucrats had merely made the decision? No. So why would this be any different? The Bureaucrats could even decide to merely resolve the election based solely on the vote tallies if they so chose.

Regarding your 1st paragraph, again, I think this is another issue that while not mutually exclusive to the content in this policy would merely muddy the waters further and would not significantly contribute to the overarching goal of the proposed changes.

Finally, regarding your last paragraph, of course there is no such thing as a perfect system; this policy does not purport to be anything of the kind. What it does purport to be is a better system. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Transition from 6mo to 12mo terms

So switching from 6 to 12 month terms presents a problem. If we continue on our present election schedule (ie, that dictated by the current expiration of terms), we'll have an election in April (this one), June, August, and October (for the bcrat emerging from this current election). If the winners of the June, August, and October votes all took office for a year, we'd still have elections every two months, but then we'd have a seven month break from November to May each year.

There a few options to ease this transition, ignoring the option of just cruising with two bureaucrats for a while while we wait out the proper timing:

1. Extend existing terms: Keep the existing bureaucrats in office longer in order to push out the gaps between elections to four months instead of two. The exact distribution of extra months is problematic, especially due to this current election. Assuming we start the 12 month terms in June (Aiiane), we could extend Tanaric two months and Xeeron four, or Tanaric six and Xeeron none. Other options exist, but tend to cause more overlap and get messier.
2. Hold an interim six-month election: Aiiane's replacement in June would be for twelve months, the August election (for Tanaric) would be for six, Xeeron's October term would be for twelve, and then Tanaric's successor's February election would count for twelve months.
3. Staggered term extensions: We basically extend each new term, starting in August, by two months until we hit twelve. Aiiane would be in for 8 months, Tanaric 10, and Xeeron (Oct) for 12. So we'd have Aiiane (June-Feb), Tanaric (Aug-June), Xeeron (Oct-Oct). At that point (Oct 2009), we'd be fully into 12 month terms for every bureaucrat.

In all cases, elections would then take place in the months of February, June, and October.

Hopefully this is all relatively clear. Discuss. - THARKUN 02:46, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I could live with 2, but feel that 3 is the better and cleaner solution. --Xeeron 09:32, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

To clarify briefly, on option 3, when I refer to having the bcrats for longer than six months, it doesn't actually refer to the sitting bcrats. The terms referenced would actually be for their successors, but I was trying to keep things relatively simple looking. Generally the use of bcrat names is referring to their seat/term, and not them specifically holding it. I just felt that was the easier way to do it. — THARKUN 18:25, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Ahh, I see. I fully support number three as the optimal choice now. Calor 18:47, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I support option 3 as well. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

(Reset indent) Not only do all other changes being contemplated make now a bad time to change the term, it doesn't belong in the election policy anyway. Admin Policy does and should state the term (currently 6 months). It was probably just stated in this policy as an informative statement not as a determinitive one. Anyway, if you wish to attempt to change sometime, I would just refer to Admin Policy for the term. -- Inspired to ____ 14:15, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmmmm... you raise a good point, in so far as, given all the "experimentalism" going on at the moment, decreasing the frequency of elections could be a potentially bad idea. That said, that specific change is the reason that a lot of people initially supported this proposal -- and one of the reasons I wrote the proposal to be honest -- so I'm loathe to remove it without seeing what other people have to say on the matter. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:25, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, you could go to the Admin Policy change proposal and see if they want to put it in, but I don't know how that would go over since they seem to be trying pretty hard to get whatever they can through. Of course, if there is actually a lot of support for this change, it may help that change get approved. Either way, hard to see how a change in this policy would override the term in that policy. -- Inspired to ____ 15:29, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I have no interest in bringing up the issue there, I want to see it passed too much to attempt to add a potentially divisive change that would sidetrack discussion. That said, consider: why shouldn't the Election policy state the result of an election (i.e. how long the newly elected Bureaucrats term would be)? Why shouldn't the Election policy state how often elections should take place? You can argue it either way, but if there's enough consensus to get that change passed on this policy, given the way policies interact, I don't see it as one policy overriding another, merely as a change that is pertinent to both documents. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:34, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't know how you could argue that a policy that defines a position doesn't override a policy that determine who will fill that position. But, either way, I hope you don't desire to sidetrack this discussion any more then that one with this "potentially divisive change". -- Inspired to ____ 17:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Short answer: I don't. Long answer: consensus is extremely close to being reached on Draft B based on recent discussion. Attempting to change the terms now on that policy would be side-tracking it. In the case of this proposal however, longer terms were part of the proposal from the beginning. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, I would hope that you would agree this policy wasn't getting much traction in its original form. Anyway, it does seem to have the best chance of actually leading to some improvement before the next election. But, only if it can be changed to things that consensus actually already exists on or can be achieved for. After all if consensus existed for this change it would already have gotten made in that other proposal or in one of the other election policy proposals. -- Inspired to ____ 17:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As I said, this is one of the issues we can talk about and I'm willing to change it if a majority of people want me to, but as things stand now, I think there's still more support for dissent (at least as evinced by this talk page) for lengthened terms. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Where We're At

Unfortunately, this isn't getting a lot of discussion at the moment. From what I can tell, two people have "dissented," Xeeron because he believes that this isn't a feasible proposal and Riceball (not sure whether Riceball's actually qualifies as a dissent) because it doesn't fix the issues he sees with the current voting procedure. Everyone else who has commented seems to have been pretty positive. I'm gonna ping this on RfCs to encourage more debate and I'd encourage people who've yet to add their opinion to do so -- else I may be forced to prematurely claim consensus has been reached on the matter. ;) *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:53, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

It's fine for me :) But maybe we could add something that the bcrat (which seat ends) continues being bcrat until the election ends if the election is lengthened for some reason (for example a restart because of bad voting results). I think the term of the new bcrat should be unchanged then though. poke | talk 11:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Added. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

What about adding a clause which allows a bureaucrat to call an early election for their own seat without having to resign first? -- Gordon Ecker 23:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Eh, I don't know what I think about that. Even though bureaucrat resignations are rare, they are often amidst other drama on the wiki, and another election wouldn't really help calm things down. Calor 00:24, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I tend to follow Xeeron's sentiment that sitting bureaucrats should not have such a heavy hand in the decision. For driving discussion with an ultimate requirement of directly satisfying some group, I'd sympathize with pressure towards having that group be the community (by consensus). But if not the community, taking the sitting bureaucrats as the group instead pretty much represents the polar opposite in terms of bias and transparency given the role of the office. It widens the gulf from consensus in the general case, respectively detracting from progress in building power into the role. This would also make users like myself less likely to try to drive the discussion in positive ways because of the greater difficulty in transparently having a "fair" degree of influence/control over the decision (rather than too much or too little). --Rezyk 11:34, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Broken diff link

The diff link currently isn't working. -- Gordon Ecker 05:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

In fact Template:Diffwith doesn't seem to be working anywhere. I've reported it at Guild Wars Wiki:Reporting wiki bugs. Here's a crude, improvised diff table... -- Gordon Ecker 05:40, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

current diff poke | talk 11:02, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Some concerns

1. Term lenght. I think there is an important lesson to be lernt in that incumbent bcrats just don't want to run again. Check past elections. As bcrat is the only possition with actuall duties, beinga bcrat is a commitment. And a year may, psychologically, be too long. I'd worry that good candidates just wouldn't be willing to run in this system. As for apathy, the solution to that is to make elections less of a burden, something this proposal goes against.

2. Deciding by consnesus. We've tried. Repeatedly. It just won't work. And there is good theoretical reasons for that. This peoposal does nothing to fix what is broken, and then puts aa heavier weighting on it. Recipie for disaster?

3. Runoffs. There's too little detail on how and when this is supposed to wrok to make policy or have an opinion on. And why prolong when you could just combine with stage 2 and save people the effort, as per the first point?

4. Assumption on unity of bctas. This peoposal is currently technically broken, as it has no recourse for when the bcrats are not in agreement on what to do. Can't just assume they are of one mind.

5. Giving the other bcrats an extra say. Besides runoffs, this is the equivallent of giving them ~5 votes each in stage 2 and keeping the current policy otherwise. Except doing so would be both faster and not have issue 4. Backsword 05:50, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

srsly --Frozen Archer 05:58, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Alrighty then:

1. Right off the bat, I would guess (and someone can correct me if I'm wrong) that the primary reason that incumbents tend not to run for multiple terms is because they prefer to see new people on the Bureaucrat team. I would also suggest that it may be suggestive that although two current Bureaucrats have posted comments, neither has taken issue with the change in length. Also, I think we are talking about different kinds of apathy. You seem to be referring to apathy as far as the candidates are concerned (i.e. that people may not want to run if their terms are longer) whereas I'm talking about voter apathy (i.e. an election every other month makes people apathetic when it comes to elections).
2. Read my response to Xeeron above.
3. As to your first point, I made the rules about run-offs purposefully vague so that they could be tailored to the situation. Also, read my response to Xeeron above.
4. I completely disagree/feel that your logic doesn't work. If the Bureaucrats can't reach consensus, they can call for a run-off wherein the winner is decided via strict plurality. So, even if the Bureaucrats can't agree (and, to be honest, I've found that in Bureaucrat discussions, consensus can almost always be reached, there's still an essentially fool-proof way to decide the winner.
5. Again, I disagree. Giving them extra votes allows them to manufacture consensus during the voting stage. This policy only gives them any additional power if the voters on themselves (either through a clear majority during the voting phase or during the discussion phase) cannot reach a consensus themselves.

*Defiant Elements* +talk 13:57, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

1. No, I'm refering to voter aphaty too. I do think this is an issue, and making election longer and requiring more effort is the wrong way to go.

2. Did read, thus my reference to this making things worse in my first point. It's not "no harm".

3. I thought they would only be used in one given situation; close votes?

4. With the details purposely vague, what if they can't decide on the details? Or it just takes a long time?

5. My proposal gives them that exact same power. If the vote is clear without their extra votes, those won't be enough to change the outcome. OTOH if the vote is close, they'll make the difference if the bcrats are in agreement.

Backsword 08:13, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. I'm still inclined to believe that, given that this cuts the number of annual elections in half, people would be more willing to contribute in a meaningful manner.
2. The problem is that I don't agree with your assessment that this policy is intrinsically harmful, which renders this a moot point in my mind.
3. Yeah, they would only be implemented when no clear winner emerges, but that doesn't mean that two, different, close elections won't call for two different kinds of run-offs. If you disagree (and think, for instance, that run-offs should always be simple plurality votes) we can discuss that.
4. I'll be honest... I find it incredible unlikely that two Bureaucrats (who are, in part, elected because they are rational, level-headed, etc.) couldn't come to some kind of agreement in a timely fashion. I would argue that Bureaucrats, by the very nature of their authority, have to be able to do so.
5. Of which proposal are you speaking? Also, without having seen the proposal of which you speak, I'd rather make the attempt to decide winners via consensus before giving the Bureaucrats the deciding vote.

*Defiant Elements* +talk 23:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

1. Well, whatever the reason, y'know?

3. If the winner is not to win, why hold them? Tho' I was more thinking about things like lenght and so.

4. But what if, despite all that, they don't?

5. Yours, ofc? If you think about it, the effects are the same. Just ajust the extra votes to match what you consider a clear result.

Backsword 06:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

3. You hold them because they are useful as a gauge of community opinion, and they help determine the front runners and in some cases the clear wnners.

4. They can hold a run-off where the winner is elected via simple plurality. Yes, some Bureaucrats might not like having to do that, but it's still a "neutral" option.

5. Ah, you said "my proposal" which led me to believe that there was some alternate policy proposal floating around that you had written. If nothing else though, I'd prefer to have Bureaucrats seen as "making the decision" than have them appear to be essentially inflating the vote count artificially. That said, as long as you're not suggesting removing discussion as the primary decider, then yes, the outcome would be the same. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:01, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

3. It'd be a bit of a farce to hold one just to find out what people think, and then, after finding out people prefer candidate X, give the seat to their guy Y anyway, don't 'cha think? Backsword 10:48, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

3. Not necessarily, no. If candidate X has say... 10 more votes than candidate Y, that might be true, but when this policy really comes into effect is when candidate X is only ahead by a couple of votes. And, in that case, I'd say it would be perfectly reasonable for the community at large (via discussion) to make a decision in favor of candidate Y or even for the Bureaucrats to make a decision in favor of candidate Y (if discussion does not produce consensus). As long as we're clear that the vote is not the be all and end all, then no, it would not be a farce. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

DE, I'm not convinced, especially after the current election. I think Backsword is correct in a lot of this. You assume that we must base who the winner is on discussion and consensus because we won't take the time to think beforehand? Well, look where that has gotten us. It simply did not work. We did think beforehand and cast our votes accordingly; but because we already knew what we thought, the discussion following only made things worse. This current election did not follow the current election policy for some reason. Instead it followed this one. Because of that, we are in a mess. We treated stage 3 as a time to reach consensus and discuss merits of the potential candidates. This is not what Stage 3 was supposed to be based on the current election policy. If we had followed the current policy, we would have already awarded the seat. I think this proposal muddies things up a lot. Really, stage 3 is the stage I have the most problem with. Personally, I think we should either stick with the current election policy (and enforce it), or start from scratch rather than simply modifying it. I do think that the current policy could use some changes, but I'm afraid that this proposal only damages the functional parts.
One more thing, it would probably be better working from a mindset that assumes that those who are actually involved enough in the behind-the-scenes part of the wiki to actually vote will not cast their votes lightly. On the contrary, they will probably be very thought out. In such cases, plurality is a good and representative thing. Mohnzh say what? 23:16, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A couple of things. First, the current policy says that the result should not be based on a simple vote tally, it too encourages an attempt to reach consensus following the voting stage, this proposal merely takes that a step further. Maybe the problem is somewhat akin to the "literalism" vs. "spirit of the policy" debate. People got it into their heads that the literal interpretation was the be all and end all, so a number of decisions were based on that decision. In the same way, I read the current Elections policy as making provisions for attempts to reach consensus using the vote tally and ratio as a tool, not as the be all and end all. Second of all, speaking for myself (I went through and read the discussion last night), I found some aspects of the discussion rather enlightening. Yes, people got off track, but that's beside the point. More importantly, I see a winner (even if not a "clear" winner) beginning to emerge from that discussion. Particularly once we started getting away from the more combative discussion and starting getting more at the, "Ok, we have two front runners, let's logically compare their merits" a la Aiiane's comments, I see that as invaluable. Part of the problem I think is that we disagree at a fundamental level. You see this policy as "only damag[ing] the functional parts," whereas I see this policy as fixing the broken aspects of the current policy. Part of the problem, I think, is that people somehow got it in their heads that this was supposed to be a simple vote tally, so they use that as the basis of discussion, which is one of the things that I believe this policy addresses explicitly. Regarding the merits of a plurality system, I agree, it has merits, that's why I chose not to get rid of it all together. I think it can be illustrative, and, in some cases, it can indicate a clear winner (a la Aberrant), but I don't think that someone should lose by one vote because one person who happened to personally dislike a candidate voted against them. Yes, many of the people who vote do so in a very logical fashion, but a margin of one or two votes is essentially negligible given the margin of error, so basing the outcome of an election on that negligible difference is, in my mind, very much illogical. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:36, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Unworkable Policy

This policy is completely unworkable almost to the point of being meaningless unless any policy would work. Let me explain.

• Stage 1. Fine.
• Stage 2. Meaningless because Stage 3 supersedes it.
• Stage 3. "The winners are decided upon via discussion rather than simple plurality." Excellent sounding, except stating it doesn't make it so. If discussion could lead to a winner, it was already determined in Stage 2 and the election would have already been done if the vote wasn't essentially discarded. And if you like to think that the rest of this stage changes anything becasuse it sound nice. Remember, all the "shoulds" and "mays" in the world don't actually require anything to happen. So...
• Stage 4. The existing bureaucrats decide. And, some more nice sounding "shoulds" and "mays".

So, this policy should be dismissed as a waste of space, changed to just let any existing bureaucrat's pick new ones, or the "shoulds" and "mays" need to be changed to "musts" and "wills" so that actions under it can be taken to arbitration. Of course, since the purpose is to choose the arbitrators, that is ridiculous. So can we please return a meaningful discussion that actually has a possibility of improving this policy mess. -- Inspired to ____ 23:31, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I think I essentially responded to parts of this in my response to Mohnzh, above. That said, while I sorta addressed this point above, I'd like to go into a little more detail on your assertion that Stage 2 is meaningless because of Stage 3. Voting is very much not meaningless; rather, instead of treating those votes as the sole factor in decision-making, this policy treats it more along the lines of a poll. A poll can be analyzed in a variety of fashions and it can also represent a consensus if the results are clear-cut. For instance, in US primaries, people often base their opinions (at least partially) on the relative viability of a candidate based on roll results. As I said to Mohnzh, part of the problem is that the reason that people have such trouble with Stage 3 is that they believe that Stage 2 should have been the deciding factor. What those "excellent sounding" words do is to establish once and for all that, in fact, the true deciding factor is discussion. I also absolutely object to your statement that this is meaningless discussion or that this policy is a waste of space simply because you're a member of the "opposing camp" (for lack of a better phrase), there's quite a bit of support for this policy if you'll notice. For the rest (on both points), see my response to Mohnzh. *Defiant Elements* +talk 20:45, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

"Grounded"

Could you clarify this: Should sitting bcrats pick a new bcrat based on whom they think is best supported by the community or whom they think the arguments best show as fitting their own preferences for a bcrat? Backsword 05:07, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well... there's a loaded question if I've ever seen one. Short answer: they should pick the candidate best supported by the community. Long answer: the final decision should still be based primarily on community support; however, Bureaucrats, given that they're in a unique position in terms of understanding the makeup of the Bureaucrat team can certainly bring that aspect (i.e. who will fit in well) into the discussion. That's not to say that they can simply pick the candidate they "prefer." *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:54, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There is are two very good reasons why deciders of fact remove themselves from decisions that present a conflict of interest, and one of them isn't because they don't know what the decision should be based on. First, a perceived conflict of interest leads to skepticism that the decision was based on the right thing. And, more importantly, we're all imperfect and completely removing personal bias can be strived for, but rarely if ever fully achieved. Finally, let me be clear that in this scenario, I would not see this as a flaw of the bureaucrats but rather as a flaw in this policy which would put them into a guaranteed conflict of interest situation. I believe the result of having bureaucrats choose new bureaucrats would ultimately result in a lack of respect for the whole bureaucratic team and also ultimately for the decisions they reached. No, almost any conceivable alternative to breaking deadlock or a tie is preferable to saying lets have the other bureaucrats choose; especially in a policy that makes deadlock a probable event. -- Inspired to ____ 14:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, we appear to be at an impasse then. The only way I can think to alter the policy would be to change Stage 4 so that winners are decided (following discussion) in the default case through a run-off or in the minor case (i.e. people lobby for it) by an extended discussion period. That seems like a rather major change, but it's one that we can discuss. The problem is that you need some group that determines whether consensus has been reached during Stage 3. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:45, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You shouldn't need a group to determine if consensus has been reached, that should be obvious if it has been reached. I believe that what you're really looking for is a voting pool that you're comfortable with, however small. Since your underlying problem with relying on a vote seems to be putting it in the hands of the user base, why do you even include them at all? While I would disagree with it, it would seem more fitting with what you're after if you just said that the sysops vote for bureaucrats. -- Inspired to ____ 15:03, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

"Consensus" can be a tricky thing, and not everyone agrees on what constitutes an obvious "consensus." Saying that it should be "obvious" is gonna lead to a lot of the trouble down the road when you have one guy saying that consensus has been reached and another person arguing that it hasn't. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe someone arguing consensus hasn't been reached when it actually has matters much, all that person is doing is asking for a quick rebuke from the rest. And, if its not obvious to those doing the discussing that consensus has been reached, what is supposed to allow the group of bureaucrats or whomever to deciding that it had been reached. I don't see how it makes sense to say to someone else: "tell us if we've reached consensus because we don't know." -- Inspired to ____ 21:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

You could have a whole host of people who believe there's more to be said and a whole other group who thinks that it's "obvious." Your definition of consensus seems all-together too black and white. True consensus is (almost) never going to be reached, there will always be dissenters. Part of a Bureaucrats role in ArbComm, in RfAs, etc., is to gauge community support/opposition/feeling/"consensus." It's not a matter of needing to be told when consensus has been reached, it's a matter of taking a lot of data, votes, discussion, etc., and synthesizing it down into some useful information that can then be used to make a decision. *Defiant Elements* +talk 21:41, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Wow, now you've got "true" consensus. Anyway, it seems to me that we have gotten to consensus that the intent actually is not for the bureaucrats to determine if consensus has been reached but rather for them to actually decide the election. -- Inspired to ____ 21:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Sure, they are in effect "deciding," but the whole reason I didn't take out the voting stage, the whole reason I didn't take out the discussion stage, etc., is because I don't see a final decision made (if necessary) by the Bureaucrats as being wholly separate from the user base at large being involved in that discussion and that vote, they're all part of one attempt to determine the best candidate. Those things should all be taken into account in any decision made by the Bureaucrats. *Defiant Elements* +talk 22:08, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

If you want it to be loaded you'll have to accept it's loaded both ways. I'd prefer the latter version in this proposal, and that's what I've been assuming earlier. It's the only thing that makes sense really: If you think bcrats should have privileged possitions, go the full way.

This version, considering the broken stage 3, makes them nothing more than votecounters in a fuzzy vote. And in that case, having a clear vote, in one stage, is just plain better. You could at least do what Aberrant suggests and merge 2 and 3. Backsword 05:37, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Broken stage 3? Either way, I do plan to merge stages 2 and 3 (I've actually been meaning to talk to Aberrant about that...) *Defiant Elements* +talk 13:55, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Voting and discussion merged

As requested, I have attempted a merge of the old stage 2 and stage 3. Primary changes:

• Expanded the criteria for voting eligibility to disallow known sockpuppets and allow for abstaining.
• Users are encouraged to explain their votes. Candidates are explicitly allowed to join in.
• In the case of ties, or very close/similar votes, such as 20-5 vs 20-6, or 21-1 vs 30-10, as per the original draft, bureaucrats can base their decision on the arguments and reasonings that voters have put forward.

-- ab.er.rant 07:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

As for point 2, it seems odd to me that possitive reasons are given on the voting page and negative on the talk page. As for point 3, as I mentioned in the above section, I'd like "grounded" to be clarified in the policy. Backsword 07:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

That was unintentionally left out. *re-added* Honestly, I don't really get what needs to be clarified. I also don't understand what exactly Inspired was getting at in the section above. That clause or portion is primarily meant to be tie-breakers, to give bureaucrats the ability to just pick a winner based on the discussions, if and only if no clear winner can be agreed upon amongst the most suitable. But with the new changes, and my proposing that we give the users what is already expected (i.e. vote tally matters), the cases where bureaucrats would need to step in would be minimised. I personally prefer to just have someone pick one than having to extend the elections by either more discussion or yet another round of voting. It's just faster and simpler. I can't see much harm in having to pick between very good candidate A and very good candidate B. -- ab.er.rant 08:59, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Regarding Stage 3, I wouldn't mind simply allowing the Bureaucrats to pick between the finalists in cases of close vote tallies. Those additional means of deciding the election were more to deal with the off-chance that the Bureaucrats couldn't reach a decision amongst themselves, or they felt they could not make a (reasonably) objective decision, or it appeared as if discussion was heading in the right direction, etc. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

EDIT: That section of Stage 3 has been removed for the time being. Anyone who disagrees with its removal is encouraged to post their opinions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Aberrant's changes make this proposal (and the current policy) a good bit better by pushing discussion to the earlier stages of the vote. However it does not change the fact that in close votes, just 2 people are going to chose the new bureaucrat. If you do away with that and either make the stage 2 result binding or replace the bureaucrats decision with a (binding) runner-off vote, I will support this. --Xeeron 15:11, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Here's my most immediate concern with that solution: at the moment, the discussion in Stage 2 has the potential to become an important deciding factor if it comes down to a decision made by the Bureaucrats, thus providing additional impetus -- beyond the exhortation in the policy itself -- for users to become involved in the discussion. However, while voting might still play some role in a system such as you describe, my worry would be that, given that a vote tally (either the tally in stage 2 or the tally in a potential run-off) would be the sole deciding factor, this policy would end up devolving into a system where discussion played no role at all.

Additionally, with either a binding run-off or a binding Stage 2 vote, there's the potential for the winner to be decided by a statistically irrelevant number of votes. And, given that I wrote this policy essentially so that people wouldn't be inclined to say: "Look, candidate A has exactly one more support vote than candidate B, therefore candidate A is the winner" I don't see how I can change it in the manner you describe. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:20, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

This proposal definitely seems to be moving in the direction toward something over which consensus could be reach. I, also, see Aberrant's vote/discussion combination as doing a lot to improve on the weakness in the current process. Apart from there appearing to be anything close to consensus for having the existing bureaucrats deciding the "winner" and I won't reiterate my arguments given previously for opposing that. I would however like to say that I believe we need to remember that for all its "messiness", the election we just had actually went very well. I know some people may not agree with me, but elections are messy and that's not a bad thing. There was a very good discussion that didn't degenerate into anything that caused harm to the wiki. And two bureaucrats were chosen after all. One by vote/discussion consensus; and although two candidates were too close for the vote/discussion to yield consensus on the second, the candidates did achieve consensus among themselves over which was to be the next bureaucrat. While I don't have a good way to force that to happen, I do believe that is better then having the already seated bureaucrats decide. Of course, there is no way to force the top candidates to decide anymore then to force the other two bureaucrats to decide. Which of course leaves the current situation of ANet deciding if the cummunity can't and I don't think anyone wants that to happen. However, the fact that no one wants that to happen is probably precisely why it hasn't and would only actually ever happen in the most extreme and unlikely situations.

So, mainly I think this just needs to be discussed a bit; but, I would offer a potential solution for the sake of discussion: If there is no consensus at the end of Stage 2, the top candidates are given a couple days to work it out among themselves; and then after that if they can't it goes to ANet. -- Inspired to ____ 16:16, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd prefer to avoid going to Anet if at all possible. Furthermore, I don't think an explicit statement that the finalists should "work it out amongst themselves" would be any less controversial than having the Bureaucrats decide. The main problem people have with the Bureaucrats making the decision is that it polarizes the decision (i.e. rather than the community deciding, two individuals decide), and having two or three finalists decide is no less polarizing. Furthermore, the Bureaucrats, in making their decision, are expected to weigh heavily discussion, etc., whereas the finalists are under no onus to work something out that reflects community opinion in any meaningful way. That said, I agree that this previous election had a number of positive elements, something I noted on the talk page thereof.

Also, one quick request for clarification: you say "Of course, there is no way to force the top candidates to decide anymore then to force the other two bureaucrats to decide. Which of course leaves the current situation of ANet deciding if the cummunity can't and I don't think anyone wants that to happen." Are you saying that Anet would have some role under this policy? I don't quite get the part about "forcing" the Bureaucrats to decide... *Defiant Elements* +talk 16:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, while I wouldn't want to say that I "want" ANet to have a role. They do curently have a role and they have been actually very good at fulfilling their role. And that has been forcing a decision to happen before it can get sent to them. So, yes absent a clear "vote tally" election, I actually think it is important to have an outcome nobody wants because that encourages consensus to happen, and ANet serves that role very well. Either that or you need something nearly as bad, such as a "start over". Also, since there will usually be two seated bureaucrats, there is no reason to assume they would agree on who the "winner" was. -- Inspired to ____ 16:51, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I'll address your last point first. If you look above, in my discussion with Backsword, we debated the point about the Bureaucrats being able to decide amongst themselves. While I stand by the argument I put forward there, the reason I originally had that section allowing the Bureaucrats to call for a run-off/reset of Stage 2 was specifically for instances where they could not reach a decision. I'm happy to re-add that section if people think it's a good idea, but I honestly don't think that it's likely to be a problem. Regarding the rest of your statement, I don't think (and a number of other people have debated this point elsewhere) that it's necessarily better to have the candidates decide amongst themselves. I also find it altogether too likely that we're gonna end up with a scenario in which neither finalist wants to back down and we're forced to go to Anet because "that's what the policy says." There were a number of advocates for going to Anet in the last election. Yes, Tanetris' withdrawal solved the problem, but Anet had in fact been contacted by that point. On a slightly different topic, if you want this debated you might want to post it on GWWT:ELECTIONS or something rather than here because I honestly can't see myself changing this proposal in the manner that you suggest. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:02, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Time for other people's opinions, but this is not "your" proposal and me or anyone else is actually perfectly entitled to change it if consensus exists to do so. -- Inspired to ____ 17:43, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps, but it's still largely a product of what I, as an individual, think should be done to improve the Election system, and I would hope that if people proposed changes that were (in essence) diametrically opposed to what I was trying to do in proposing this change, they would respect my wishes and instead create another proposal that reflected their own views. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

You seem to generally have a good grasp of things; however, you seem to fail to realize that it is impossible for consensus to have been reached for a policy proposal when conflicting proposals remain that are open and under discussion. -- Inspired to ____ 18:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I fully understand that, but I won't have accomplished anything (as far as I'm concerned) if I completely compromise what I set out to do by changing it so as to get it passed (eg. by taking Xeeron's suggestions which I consider diametrically opposed to my initial reason for writing this draft). I'm happy to compromise on a number of things that I consider of less than vital importance, including the term lengths for instance, but some things deviate too much from my original intentions. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:35, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

What I don't like about a second round of voting or an extension of stage 2 is that is unnecessarily extends the election. It's already taking a long enough time to conclude. Also, there's still no guarantee that a tie can be broken. I also don't think ArenaNet involvement is really necessary given that we have many workable solutions for resolving ties.

Take the just-concluded election for example. It's essentially a split between two capable users. I'm just not seeing much difference between wasting another week to hold yet another voting session versus having a smaller number of users to just pick one based on user discussion. Wouldn't an informed decision by 2 users, with the gain or loss of the wiki in mind, be better than a general vote where some of the reasons are still "I don't like you, so I'll vote the other guy"?

I also think the fact that bureaucrats have the final say when the community cannot decide it by vote, will spur voters and candidates into making sure the vote doesn't come to a draw. -- ab.er.rant 05:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry Aberrant, but just consider the just past election. It seemed pretty clear what Aiiane's preference was. So either you would have agreed with her resulting in a different outcome then we ended up with. Hardly the end of the world, but surely significant, but what about the alternate if you favored Auron. You and Aiiane would have been expected to resolve, but how? Well that doesn't matter because it's just plain wrong for the decision to be there. Finally, shouldn't you be allowed to have a say during the voting. Imagine how much willingness there would be for one side to consider the other sides arguments if the bureacrats had already indicated a preference for their candidate. That side would just be waiting for the voting to be over so that the bureaucrats choose their candidate. Etc, etc. etc. for reasons why this is a bad idea. Reasons why this is a good idea: ...... well I haven't heard any other than it's convenient. -- Inspired to ____ 14:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I like convenient :) But your example, similar to other examples, are mostly a really worse-case scenario and assumes the worse of the personalities of the voters :) If me and Aiiane disagreed on whether it should be Auron or Tanetris, then and only then do we settle on a run-off election or extend the voting stage. That's why bureaucrat candidates and bureaucrats don't usually vote - don't want to possibly affect things negatively. I still think it's highly unlikely that such a situation would occur. With a change in how the votes are interpreted, the only election that would require additional intervention would be the previous Xeeron vs. Tanaric election, not the recently concluded election. I did phrase the proposed change to ensure that only ties and very close vote tallies would require an additional decision-making step. -- ab.er.rant 06:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... apparently, that paragraph was changed the last I looked. No additional clause on what if the 2 bureaucrats can't agree. -- ab.er.rant 06:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

My continued concerns

As I stated on the other election policy draft, I can't support an election policy that doesn't allow a specific Discussion stage. I don't see why there seems to be such resistance to adding a 3 day interval between nominating and voting that's dedicated to discussion. At that point, we would know who has accepted their nominations, and it would give us a chance to discuss the strengths and weaknesses of all the candidates prior to placing our votes. The current election policy doesn't do this and neither of the current proposals do this, and I think it's a mistake. What it leads to is discussion happening during the voting, or heaven forbid, after. -- Wynthyst 16:58, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I briefly looked to find your other comments and I wasn't able to so maybe there is something I'm missing, but discussion during the voting seemed to be what many people wanted. Anyway, I actually would expect most people to wait until the second week to actually cast there votes under this current policy proposal, so maybe everyone could agree to peel a few days off Stage 2 that don't allow an actually casting of a "vote" as long as we didn't separate that into a "discussion stage" and leave the balance hanging as a "voting stage" without discussion. -- Inspired to ____ 17:23, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I talked with Wyn and that's essentially the compromise we worked out: the addition of a 3 day stage between stages 1 and 2 dedicated to discussion and the subtraction of 3 days from Stage 2. *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:38, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Alright, does anyone have any thoughts on the new addition to this proposal? *Defiant Elements* +talk 17:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I like it. Though it does have the longest paragraph on the whole page without any line breaks :P It just looks a little weird when comparing it to the sections immediately above and below - they both have a much shorter summary followed by a bulleted list. ¬ Wizårdbõÿ777(talk) 23:52, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, that text was mostly just moved intact from the Voting section. There wasn't really anything to bullet. -- Wynthyst 23:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Agreed. I really like this draft as a whole, and the new addition. Calor 23:56, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

My only concern with this is that when people see the sitenotice change from "dicussion phase" to "voting phase". they'll take that as a cue to stop discussing and start voting. Backsword 13:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Change the phase names? Calor 18:44, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Draft3b

Since Defiant Elements seems adament in letting bureaucrats decide close votes, I created Draft 3b, which is equal to Draft 3, with the exception of how ties in stage 3 are defined and solved: Instead of remaining bureaucrats deciding there is a runner-off vote and only in cases of exactly equal voting in stage 3. My reasons for that are:

With these new drafts, discussion happens at the correct time, that is before the voting. That also means that everyone can bring forward arguements in favor of or against candidates to convince other voters. If, in the following vote, a candidate receives less votes than another candidate, that implies that more users were convinced by the arguements put forward for that candidate than were by the arguements put forward for the other candidates. Allowing the bureaucrats to overturn the informed decision by voters is basically taking the popular will out of the vote. This is made worse by making it not only happen in ties, but also in close cases, when the mechanics of approval voting make sure that most elections will be close.

We had the discussion whether new bureaucrats should be chosen by the community or by old bureaucrats a long time ago and decided decisively in favor of the community. Draft 3 would introduce choice by the old bureaucrats by stealth and unneededly: There are enough methods to break a tie that still involve the community and not only bureaucrats (e.g. runner-off votes). --Xeeron 10:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Check

As near as I can tell, there are still two issues that remain in dispute: term lengths and Bureaucrat involvement in deciding winners. Obviously, a decision will need to be made between this draft and Xeeron's draft and I'm willing to talk about reverting the change to the term lengths if a majority of people believe that's the best course of action, but, for the moment, I'd like to see where people stand on this proposal (in light of the various changes) and for those who don't support this proposal, I'd be interested to here what the major stumbling blocks are. Additionally, a number of people have raised the point that, with only 2 Bureaucrats not up for re-election, it's theoretically possible that they could not resolve the election. So, I'd like to know what people think should be done (if anything) to tie up this potential loose end. *Defiant Elements* +talk 19:43, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

What do you mean by "with only 2 Bureaucrats not up for re-election, it's theoretically possible that they could not resolve the election."? I'd like to get as much information out of that paragraph of yours before putting in an honest input. — ク Eloc 貢 00:59, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

I mean that they might not be able to reach an agreement if it came down to them making the decision. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Wasn't there previously a statement that allowed bureaucrats to extend the voting or hold a run-off election should they not agree? -- ab.er.rant 06:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't really care about draft terms, but I would prefer them to be longer rather than shorter. As for deciding winners, I think Xeeron's method is more effective, but there are probably even better ways. Calor 01:01, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

More

This is not really about this draft in specific, but well, there is more trafic here. I think it was useful to look and ends before debating means, as it tends to be a tad easier to agree on those then. Do we have a general agreement on who's preferences should count in the first place? Backsword 15:35, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge

Alright, I've merged 3 and 3b (i.e. accepted Xeeron's changes) primarily because, setting aside deciding winners for the moment, there's a lot to be said for this proposal and I'd like to see it passed (something needs to be passed) before the next election. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I've also merged elements of Draft 4 (mostly the stuff about vacated seats) into this policy. *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:43, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Opinion Check 2

Okay then. Now that Drafts 3 and 3b have been merged the only issue (of which I'm aware) on which consensus has not been achieved is the question of term lengths. So, in light of the recent changes, I'd like to once again ask people where they stand (particularly with regard to the question of term length). *Defiant Elements* +talk 23:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

The longer, the better. Less elections means less drama and less confusion, and more calm, productive time for the wiki. Calor 00:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Not sure if it means more or less drama. But, my only question, and it's really more addressed to those who are or who would consider being bureaucrats, would you be more or less likely to do so with longer or shorter terms? -- Inspired to ____ 01:15, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Granted, I definitely do not meet the qualification of considering to be a bureaucrat, if I were I would be much less likely to consider with the longer length. BUT, I know personally that I will be going through a lot of life changes (my wife and I are having a baby!!) over the next couple of years, so people more settled may say it makes no difference. Mohnzh say what? 01:34, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I guess people will be slightly less likely to candidate, but on the other hand, reducing the time the wiki spends in "election mode" from about 6 months/year to 3 is a big advantage, so 1 year seems reasonable. It should not get any longer than that though. --Xeeron 11:14, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any particular opinions regarding 6 months or 1 year. I'm just curious as to what the "transition" section means. Does it mean my term is now extended by 2 months? Or that the term for the next election is extended by 2 months? And the next one by 4 months, etc..? -- ab.er.rant 06:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

The latter. See Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft 3#Transition from 6mo to 12mo terms. *Defiant Elements* +talk 10:57, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

I'd much rather see this proposal remain unchanged on term lenghts, so it can get put in place before the next election. The merits (ior lack thereof) of semipermanent bcrats can be debated in a seperate proposal. I do think we can agree that termlenght is not what has caused problems in previous elections. Backsword 14:42, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

For the moment, there are still many more people in support of changing the term lengths than there are opposed, so I don't see it as a obstacle to passage of this proposal. *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't counted votes. But I see things in both directions. Worse, I see vauge statements, indicating that people feel that they haven't heared all arguments, pro and con. Thus why it would take time. As it seems seperate from the rest of the proposal, I'd like to see it proposed seperately, in order to not hold this up. Backsword 15:47, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

My view on term lengths is mixed. I wouldn't mind the 12 month term length, however, I don't believe it's this policy that determines term length, I believe that's in ADMIN, so rather than having to rework ADMIN to change it, I'm leaning more toward leaving it 6 months.-- Wynthyst 16:11, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

In regards of lenght, what worries me is the activity (or lack of it) from a possible bcrat. Since we know "real life happends", i would like to see a method by which, in case of 1 year terms being decided, allowed bcrats to be quickly replaced (as in "1 week tops") if they showed no signs of life when required to act. As of right now, i feel that the current proposal would mean we would have to waste too much time trying to locate a inactive bcrat before calling the seat "vacant".--Fighterdoken 21:50, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Technical issues

1. If no candidate has a positive vote tally at the end of stage 3, a new election should be started immediately beginning from stage 0.

This used to be followed by a clause voiding this demand during sucha reelection IIRC. I think that clause was good; while new candidates are the hope here, if they do not happen, outcome is likely to be the same thus causing an infinite election loop.

2. At the end of the volunteering window, the highest ranking eligible volunteer becomes a bureaucrat, ties are resolved by simple majority vote of the remaining bureaucrats.

A majority out of 2? Not much of a tiebreaker. Giving the deciding vote to the senior sitting would fix it. (Or perhaps junior, wioth a fresher mandate?)

3. The new bureaucrat's term expires at the end of the next election.

This would sirupt the staggering of elections we worked to set up. Setting the new term to the remainder of the original would fix this. (but would mean no less than 3 choices for one term). Another solution would be to scrap it, and let the replacement get the full remaining term. Backsword 14:50, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Edited all three... although I don't love the solution to number 2... *Defiant Elements* +talk 15:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

It's unlikely to happen in the first place, so it's mostly a just in case thing. Backsword 15:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

A scenario

Suppose that we have an election under this proposal where the votes cast are like in previous elections, but with the exception that 60 of my guildmates also participate (each meeting the 100-edit qualification) and push the vote in favor of my guild leader. Then would my guild leader be clearly elected as bureaucrat? --Rezyk 02:59, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If despite any opposition, your guild leader still has the highest positive vote tally, then yes. Are you suggesting this as a potential for abuse? -- ab.er.rant 03:25, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

If sixty of your guildmates are active on the wiki, then they are pretty dominant, and having one of them as bcrat wouldn't be unrepresentative. Backsword 04:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

It isn't a given that they are active on the wiki. --Rezyk 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

For the case where he doesn't have a net positive tally, we could consider the extended scenario where the second-highest tally at roughly 33 - 60 = -27 is still lower, and these same totals show up in the restart elections (which eventually have no new candidates).

My worries are never really so much about "abuse" then they are about potentially sticky issues. --Rezyk 05:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, and what if no one accepts a nomination and thus we have no candidates? Or what if the wiki servers go down for the last day of the vote? Or what if we wait until a "sticky situation" actually comes up to decide how to deal with it? -- Inspired to ____ 05:56, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Or maybe people will suddenly want to account for voting by preference instead of just voting by support, even though designing around the former was rejected. Interesting to think about how we deal with that. --Rezyk 17:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

There'll always be sticky issues when it comes voting. An election is, very fundamentally, who has the greatest number of supporters. There's probably nothing that can be done to alleviate something like that unless we stop treating votes equally. -- ab.er.rant 06:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah... trying to find a "perfect" election system (i.e. one which has no flaws) is a bad idea (considering no such system exists). You're never gonna be able to eliminate every possible "sticky situation." *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

So if you guys recognize that there are always potentially sticky issues, why are you doing away with the mechanism that is originally intended to allow for us to deal with them subjectively, and replacing it with a 1-day cut-and-dry objective vote tally? With my original question, I'm not looking to demand a perfect or thorough dry answer/mechanism -- I'm trying to determine if the motivation for the change is that you all believe this new stage 4 simple vote tally is one. --Rezyk 17:50, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Consensus

I fully support implementing this. Note that it does not have to be seen as the final form of this policy; only as a significant improvement on the current version and as good foundation for other changes. Backsword04:43, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The changes to the discussion and voting is much needed to align what is written with actual expectation. -- ab.er.rant 06:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

I also agree, it is a vast improvement on what we have, and implementing now will make sure it's in place for the next election. Do we need to address the term length in GWW:Admin as well?-- Wynthyst 06:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Term length seesm to be dropped for now, to be discussed more. Let's implement this one. - anja 07:41, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

We can deal with points of contention (deciding winners, term lengths, etc.) after we get this implemented. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:04, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me :D -- Wynthyst 18:11, 21 May 2008 (UTC)