Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/2007-08 bureaucrat election

Pattern of Voters

Hmm, seems to me once one person is either winning or losing, everyone else kind of goes with the flow with voting.--§ Eloc § 00:42, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You forgot to count the neutral votes. -- ab.er.rant 01:05, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Um yea...there are no neutral votes....for anyone... --- Raptors

How would that look particularly different from voters having preferences that were independently generated but naturally similar? --Rezyk 01:26, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, look at some of the voters who don't reach 100 edits yet. If they haven't, then they couldn't have possibly run into the candidates and get to know if they are (or are not) beaurocat material. This is called, undecided voters. They are easily persuided by short answers like 9/11 and The Legion of Doom. In Canada, we got fringe partys which try to take advatage of this, some being partys like Marijauna party or the Rhino Party (which wanna remove gravity).--§ Eloc § 01:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

You're right, it's all a conspiracy to keep you down. -Auron 01:46, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Naw, that's one of Priestess Donut's conspiracies.--§ Eloc § 01:51, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Why wasn't this done with a random voting poll? 68.35.91.2 01:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

@Raptors, when I said neutral votes, I meant those voters who did not vote for all the candidates. It's logical to believe they are neutral towards those they did not vote for.

@anon, what exactly is a random voting poll? Everyone closes their eyes and tries to randomly click on a candidate's link?

@Eloc, how do you know those with fewer edits did not "run into the candidates" yet? You do not have to directly interact with another user to gauge their character. You can tell whether you like a person or not simply by reading what they write. Just like politicians, you don't have to talk to them to vote for them. You read about them and look at their actions. And yes, there are users who believe that the current way of voting feels like a popularity contest but so far, there hasn't been any proposal for any drastic changes. -- ab.er.rant 02:16, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A random voting poll would be something like on a forums. Maybe make something like that where you got a choice and then you click on it and then it counts your edits to make sure you got 100.--§ Eloc § 02:59, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Me thinks you mean automated, not random. Backsword 03:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If so, that's a "poll". There's no randomness about it. Anonymous polls are never accurate, so it definitely won't work any better than what we currently have. -- ab.er.rant 03:41, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Make some program in it that checks that they have 100 edits. They have sites that Wikipedia uses for checking the number of contributions. It also shows how many you got in User space.--§ Eloc § 05:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea Eloc, I expect a prototype on my desk tomorrow. Get working. LordBiro 18:19, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok :P.--§ Eloc § 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Deciding of winner

Now that voting has closed, it appears that Tanaric and Xeeron are the two potential winners, and both have nearly identical amounts of community support. Thus, I'd like to initiate the discussion of which of them should be assigned the open position, as there is currently only a single bureaucrat seat in contention. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 05:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Xeeron, he has one more vote than Tanaric.--§ Eloc § 05:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The votes are close enough that I'd consider it not necessarily a matter of straight count, Eloc. However, you're welcome to your opinion. :) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:37, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The policy bit for this stage says that "Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors (e.g. a candidate who receives a support to oppose ratio of 5:1 could still lose to a candidate with a ratio of 2:1). The winner needs to have a "positive vote balance", that is, more supporting than opposing votes" - based on that I don't see why Tanetris shouldn't be considered at this point alongside Tanaric and Xeeron. For the record though I stick with my vote - Xeeron. --NieA7 11:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I am fully aware of that portion of the policy, Nie, however my statement that Tanaric and Xeeron seem to enjoy more community support stems from the fact that Tanetris' support is from a subset of those who voted for Tanaric and Xeeron, and thus we do not have a situation where, say, more notable or respected members of the wiki (but fewer in number) voted for Tanetris while a greater number of lesser known users voted for Tanetris - that isn't the case here, and thus I think it's fairly clear that Tanetris shouldn't be further considered for this particular election period. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 11:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't count him out by default in this election. If someone can bring up a convincing argument in support of Tanetris, he should have a chance. He's got more support than opposition, and nobody has brought up any particular reason he shouldn't serve as Bureaucrat.

Is that likely? Not really. But it's possible. -Auron 11:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Aiiane - fair enough: your reasons all make very good sense, it's just that they weren't presented in your initial post. --NieA7 12:09, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

"the general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition" Based on this, I would suggest that Xeeron is the winner. Incidentally, note that Tanetris has the highest ratio of support/oppose votes, with 100% of those being support votes. --Rezyk 12:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, first off thanks to those of you still supporting me (and in fact everyone who voted for me). That said, at this point I think it makes the most sense to try to find if a significant number of those who voted for both Xeeron and Tanaric have a clear preference for one over the other. If all or most of those who voted for them both and have a preference would prefer Tanaric over Xeeron or vice versa, I would say that would be our winner. Of course, if it somehow turns out that I'm the only candidate everyone can agree on, I'd be honored, but for now I think the focus should be on those two. - Tanetris 18:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Rezyk; surely you aren't suggesting that simply because Xeeron's numbers are higher, he wins? That would make it a vote, and votes suck. -Auron 00:28, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

He may not be suggesting that but unless Tanaric's supporters or Xeeron's supporters can come up with a convincing argument of why one is better than the other, I'd say total support minus total oppose is the best alternative we have. -- ab.er.rant 01:14, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

What he quoted is taken right out of the policy. - BeX 02:46, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I am basically saying that legitimately having the highest number should give the win, even if it's by a small amount. That does make it a vote, which I support (for the exceptional case of bureaucrat selection) despite the suckitude of voting. I don't even understand how to interpret it as not-a-vote. Also, polling supporters for their preference of Tanaric versus Xeeron and making a decision off of that is, IMO, just an alternative form of voting at heart. (Not necessarily worse/wrong, mind you, but different.) --Rezyk 08:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

"Both the total count and ratio of support/oppose votes should not be considered factors (e.g. a candidate who receives a support to oppose ratio of 5:1 could still lose to a candidate with a ratio of 2:1). The winner needs to have a "positive vote balance", that is, more supporting than opposing votes" Well, I guess I'm out lol.--§ Eloc §

Flip a ? :) Maybe the existing bureaucrats should have a sort of arbcom and a vote/discussion amongst themselves to decide out of the Xeeron and Tanaric. --Lemming 10:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Bureaucrats choosing bureaucrats has no backing in the elections policy, is not in the scope of their duties, and is just ethically not right. Elections are how the community controls the ArbComm, it'd be backwards for the ArbComm itself to choose its own members, and sets a very bad precedent. Lets stick with the policy and discussion.

I personally agree that, as was pointed out, Xeeron seems to be the winner right now, as per "the general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition". --Dirigible 11:44, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

The community has still chosen 2 users with roughly an equal number of votes, so it is not like the bureaucrats would be picking who they wanted over the community's choice. But it was just an idea :) --Lemming 20:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Unless somebody has a reason why I should be considered above Xeeron, I support giving him the seat. —Tanaric 23:07, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to hear Xeeron's opinion, as he seems to be the leading candidate. Backsword 13:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

I would like to hear this too. —Tanaric 20:44, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

It seems he's not very active lately. Last here on the 15th and before that the 5th. - BeX 05:59, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

He mentioned that he's on holiday on his talk page and that he can only come online once a week. But he didn't mention how long he'll be away though. -- ab.er.rant 06:14, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I just noticed that. :) - BeX 06:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

If anyone wants to make a case for a different decision here, it'd be good to get it going soon. On August 27, if we don't have a consensus, this will get passed to ArenaNet. If you do object to the suggestion that "Xeeron won the vote/election", be sure to say so by then, so we know whether or not that should happen. --Rezyk 06:27, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

(back from holidays now)

I agree with most said above (especially the part about existing bureaucrats not choosing). If there is no conclusion, it needs to be forwarded to Anet. However, it would be nice if those people who voted both for me and Tanaric (at a first glance there where quite a few) could indicate a preference here. Say that 10 people step forward and state that they support both tanaric and me, but for all of them tanaric would be first choice. In that case the winner should be tanaric, despite the vote count. --Xeeron 19:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted for and support both. My preference is Tanaric, and I consider Xeeron the winner. --Rezyk 20:08, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted for both, but I do not want to give preference to one of them. As Xeeron has one more vote, I would say Xeeron is the winner.. poke | talk 20:42, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Based on their actions,comments, and the vote count. I voted for and support both but my preference is Xeeron.--Bane of Worlds 21:29, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Although I voted for both, I feel that Xeeron has won this time. -- Scourge 23:21, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I support both equally, but I agree with poke - I think Xeeron won this time. Erasculio 00:08, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I voted for both, but I would prefer Xeeron. My reason is simple, my experiences is Xeeron have been more level headed, and I have felt he, more than Tanaric, have gone outside personal preferences and tried to do the best for the community. I cannot point to actions where one did right and one did wrong, it's not that easy, but it is my experience. - anja 09:24, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Given that we have relatively good bureaucrats on the arbcom at the moment, I would put my preference on Xeeron, as was mentioned in a previous election, to put in some "fresh blood". If the arbcom was mostly new bcats, then I would give stronger support to Tanaric, but as it is, I'm leaning towards supporting Xeeron. -- ab.er.rant 05:50, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Poke, Scourage, and Erasculio, I'm not sure your responses are helpful. Merely saying that Xeeron's vote count is higher does not help the process -- this stage is not merely about vote counts, as Auron notes below. Xeeron didn't ask for who had a higher vote count -- he asked whom among us you'd prefer, regardless of the votes. If your comments were intended regardless of the votes, I apologize -- that doesn't seem clear.

As an aside, I really hate that I have to get involved like this, as the conflict of interest is readily apparent. I'm a little disappointed that nobody else has argued against the vote-centricity of this stage of the election.

—Tanaric 06:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... the way I read the process, voting has little to do with Stage 3. The vote is a good way to weed candidates out early, by showing through numbers that some candidates are simply not supported by the community.

Once this initial weeding out is complete, the process moves to stage 3; deciding the winner. From the first line of the "rules", The community decides the winner(s) through discussion and consensus on the election talk subpage... and the general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition. I don't read that line as "the community looks at the vote count and declares the person with most votes the winner." I see it as "the community has voted the other candidates off the island, and now must use their heads to pick the best man for the job."

To start discussion on candidates... neither candidate would fail in the role of a Bureaucrat, but Tanaric (given past experience) would simply do a better job. I don't see "new blood" as something that matters or a reason to vote for a candidate, as it has nothing to do with how well he can arbitrate/mediate or govern sysops. On, say, GuildWiki, "new blood" in the bcrat line would make a huge difference, but here on GWW (where bcrats have set rules/responsibilities and no more say than anyone else), it doesn't matter a whit. -Auron 07:48, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How about one final vote between those 2. The rules would be you must have the 100 edits and can only vote for one. If you vote for both, both get crossed out. The person with the most votes gets the spot.--§ Eloc § 08:10, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

How do you interpret the middle part of that first line -- "based on the guideline that every regular user (that also meets stage 2 criteria) should have relatively equal weight in the voting process"? How does "amount of support minus the amount of opposition" fit into using our heads to pick, without being vote-like? --Rezyk 09:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

A bureaucrat can have much more say than others -- in arbitration cases. --Rezyk 10:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

The middle part of the vote line has no impact on my statement - it isn't regulating anything about the process, just the people involved in said process.

Deciding the "Amount of support minus the amount of opposition" doesn't take 6 days, it takes 5 minutes. Why would we devote (August 20, 2007 – August 26, 2007 11:59 PM UTC) to merely counting ballots?

Yes, Bureaucrats can arbitrate; so what? How does being new the the position affect how well one would arbitrate, except for the possibility of it being worse? -Auron 11:07, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that is exposes more people to the responsibilities of a bureaucrat. I would be more inclined to trust an arbcom comprised on individuals who are known for ability to arbitrate much more than a bunch of new guys who has never had to arbitrate anything. This is the idea I was trying to convey. Rather than cycling and voting in the same small subset of users for the bureaucrat position, why not try to increase the size of that subset? -- ab.er.rant 15:17, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Why not just call it a vote?

I'm... more than a little disturbed by this logic going around. In the part of the election process that is supposed to separate it from a mere vote, we are supposed to use discussion and reasoning to find the winner; but everyone's just treating it as a vote. Nobody (period!) has attempted to actually discuss either candidate, beyond "I voted for both, but I support this one." People are supposed to discuss each candidate and pick the winner based on his past actions, his views on certain topics, and his perceived ability to perform well in the job; nobody's done that once throughout this entire election. "Voting" for the candidates doesn't require thought, and if we come to this point and treat it as a vote anyway, the entire process is flawed.
If this is how we're going to act every time a vote is close, why not just remove the Stage 3: Deciding Winners and stop pretending we haven't degraded to the point of mere voting? -Auron 01:15, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I'd question about half of those statements/premises, but the main one is the premise that this election is supposed/pretending to be "not voting". In my view:

• Stage 3 was never to created for that, but to serve as a vote-counting process and as a general catch-all for issues like we have now.
• It is structured as a decision by vote -- the possible exception is when it falls to a decision by ArenaNet.

--Rezyk 08:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stage 3 was created to tally votes? It doesn't read that way. -Auron 09:04, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Not just to tally, but to count..sorry for nitpicking at word meanings/connotations here; what I mean is that it would be an appropriate time to, for example, argue that a particular candidate's simple tally of +1003 votes should not count as any more than +3 legitimate votes (for whatever reason). --Rezyk 09:49, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Here's how I interpret the section on stage 3:

• "every regular user ... should have relatively equal weight": I read this to mean that we can't dismiss a clear winner just because we don't happen to like the people who voted for them, as long as they're eligible. Similarly we can't pick the winner based solely on who, for example, Gem votes for, dismissing all other votes.
• "the general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition" (emphasis mine): Not the absolute metric, not the final metric, but the general metric. If it doesn't doesn't provide a clear answer at first glance, we should move on to finer metrics rather than a finer look at the same metric.
• And to go back to the beginning of the sentence: "The community decides ... based on the guideline": The above two are guidelines, not hard and fast rules, meaning if we have good reason to throw them out entirely in any given decision, we have that option.
• And one more time for that ...'ed part: "The community decides the winner(s) through discussion and consensus on the election talk subpage": Note that this is not "The votes decide, with the community discussing these results as necessary", which I read to mean that the community uses the votes to help tell who has the most support rather than the votes binding the community.

I suspect we're going to have to work a bit on that section as far as a specific process when the winner is not clearcut before the next election. Anyway, there's some time before then, and it doesn't really help us now. - Tanetris 10:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I actually simply blame the language of that section for making the process ambiguously unclear. In my view, I've always thought of this whole election as a vote, since back when we were discussing the policy draft. The policy begins by stating that this is a vote, and the "general metric" line simply reinforces that, at least in my view. Yes, it's a vote, and yes, votes suck. We've all expressed this in the past, even regarding this current policy, but it was approved because many (me included) figured it was the lesser evil. I'm looking at Auron's attempt to discuss who would be a "better" bureaucrat above and I'm shuddering, because there's no way anyone is going to convince anyone on a topic like this, it's almost the same as trying to convince your friend that vanilla icecream tastes better than chocolate icecream.

"...based on the guideline that every regular user (that also meets stage 2 criteria) should have relatively equal weight in the voting process and the general metric to be used is the amount of support minus the amount of opposition" <-- one of those regular users who voted did obviously not have equal weight, since his vote is being dismissed. If that one extra vote doesn't count and requires further work for the winner to be elected, how about if he had been 2 votes ahead? 3? What's the magic number of votes that someone needs to move from "those votes don't count, we have to discuss who wins" into "pretty irrefutable win" (hint: it must be between 1 and 14)? --Dirigible 14:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

"The community decides the winner(s) through discussion and consensus" - my bolding. The "magic number" Dirigible is whatever it takes for consensus to break down. In the case of the election you linked, there was obviously a clear consensus favoring LordBiro's election. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:11, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Consensus

While the discussion going on about the process above is a good one, and one I believe should continue, for this particular election, from what I have seen above it seems there is a fairly solid consensus among those actively interested in the outcome of this election that Xeeron should be appointed to the currently available position. Can I get a simple Agree or Disagree (feel free to comment after, but for clarity's sake, if you could begin with such) for a verification of consensus? (Note that this is not a vote, I would simply like to verify if anyone has still-pending issues with this conclusion.) (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 15:20, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree --Rezyk 19:14, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree. poke | talk 19:31, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - anja 19:40, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Agree - Tanetris 19:41, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

No need to go through this. I withdraw for expediency's sake. :) —Tanaric 01:00, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

The stage closed anyways. ;) And I think we can safely say it had consensus support for Xeeron when it ended. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 01:36, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, we certainly can't say that. You started a drive for consensus a mere 7 hours before the stage closed. There was not nearly enough time for all those involved to make their preferences known. Beyond that, the whole election process came into question, with a majority grossly misinterpreting what stage three is for (from my perspective, anyway). The policy as written makes it very clear that this is not merely a vote tallying stage, and I'm very upset it was turned into that. These close calls are what stage three is for.

Just to be clear, I am not at all disappointed with the results of this election; I am severely disappointed in the process undergone to reach that result.

—Tanaric 16:09, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

No, I think we can - because while I started a verification of consensus, I did so because in my view the consensus already seemed clear - to me. I wanted to make sure my view was shared, since I can never be 100% sure of that, and it never hurts to double check. I was basing my "we can safely say" statement not on the 4-5 responses above, but on that combined with the week-long discussion above. I read through the "Deciding of winner" section, and saw that all the issues that had been brought forth specifically about this election, i.e. whether Xeeron or another candidate, had been addressed, and that there did not seem to be any pending issues against appointing Xeeron to the slot. The other parts of the discussion were still outstanding, as I noted, however they were progressing in a fashion which did not involve the specific candidates of this election, and thus did not negate the consensus I observed in the directly relevant parts of the debate. I'm sorry if I confused you into thinking I was making that comment merely off this section header, Tanaric - but that's hardly what I was doing. When I consider a discussion, I consider it in its entirety, not simply the specific section header which I'm typing under. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 18:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can say it has turned into a mere vote tallying stage. We have people discussing their different interpretations and suggestions; that in itself is already something more. And anyone who disagreed with the proposed result (under whatever interpretation) was free to object to it. --Rezyk 21:42, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

"My preference is Tanaric, and I consider Xeeron the winner." You used the discussion stage to advocate vote tallying. Further, Auron did in fact disagree with the proposed result, objected to it, and was largely ignored. That he didn't object within the arbitrary 7 hour timeline of this specific subheading does not negate his objection. —Tanaric 22:55, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Just a note, Tanaric, to be quite honest I missed Auron's two-line comment among the rest of the text, when I was reading through it. I saw the section he started, but that didn't seem to be concerned with this particular election specifically, but moreso the entire process. (Aiiane - talk - contribs) 03:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I still don't see how you can say it has turned into a mere vote tallying stage. We had people discussing their different interpretations and suggestions, including those that do not follow my own interpretation. If it was just vote tallying, I wouldn't have had reason to give my preference. I don't see where Auron objected to the proposed result -- just the process. Fortunately, it's not just my interpretation that matters. I don't understand why it wasn't raised to ArenaNet if someone felt there was still an objection at the end. --Rezyk 09:23, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

But it is, Rezyk, though it's no fault of your own. You replied first at every important juncture indicating that this stage was intended to be a vote-tallying one. Since you wrote this policy, and, honestly, because you're Rezyk, that you said it was enough to make it true.

I'm getting a little off-topic.

In any case, I'd rather Xeeron get the seat via a flawed voting process than him get the seat by a significantly more flawed ArenaNet referral process. We can work to fix the first one.

—Tanaric 15:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, for the record, I strongly feel that the policywriters' (or Rezyk's) intention/interpretation should not automatically take precedence over the interpretation of others. Perhaps I've been presumptious in assuming that others agree with that statement.

I also wish you would give a more precise definition of "vote tallying" whenever you say that I advocate it -- I am worried that the idea of what I really support is steadily drifting farther from the truth. Frankly, I couldn't even really grasp the interpretation of others until Tanetris' explanation. I even agree with his 3rd and 4th points, and feel that there can be cases where a candidate with 9 votes should win instead of someone with 10 votes. If your definition of "vote tallying" doesn't accomodate that, then please don't believe/suggest that I am for it.

--Rezyk 21:20, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Timing of discussion

→ moved to Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections