Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections/Draft 4

Overview

The primary purpose of this proposal is to create a clear line of succession, allowing vacated bureaucrat seats to be filled quickly rather than being left open until the next election. The secondary purpose is to formalize tie breaking rules. -- Gordon Ecker 03:36, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Early term expiry

I'm considering adding the following line somewhere near the end:

"If a bureaucrat is removed from a seat through arbitration, the terms of all sitting bureaucrats are considered to expire when the next election is resolved."

The idea behind this is that the forcible removal of an elected bureaucrat is an extreme and potentially controversial action which calls the bureaucrats' mandates into question, undermining their authority, so the bureaucrats should seek a renewed mandate from the community. -- Gordon Ecker 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Does that mean the next election would elect three bureaucrats? With the winner's term being the longest? It's kinda like reconfirmation for sysops. I don't think it's necessary though. If we really do have a situation with three bureaucrats being mostly unsuitable, it likely calls for ArenaNet intervention. If the remaining two bureaucrats are willing to be put up for reconfirmation in this manner, they're probably more inclined to just resign. -- ab.er.rant 03:30, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I think it's best to avoid this. In suchan extreme situation, we'd have drama all over the wiki and it would need a sepcific situation anyway. Backsword 05:02, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A situation in which one bureaucrat is removed for legitimate reasons is far more likely than a situation in which two corrupt bureaucrats conspire to remove the third, and removal due to an extended, unexplained absence is far more likely than removal due to actual misconduct, but I feel that the forcible removal of an elected bureaucrat for any reason is likely to cause bitterness and controversy, and I'd prefer to have that controversy settled as quickly as possible, rather than letting it simmer for the remainder of the other bureaucrats' terms. -- Gordon Ecker 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Fixed election dates and term lengths?

Should we have fixed election dates? -- Gordon Ecker 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Ya, I think we should have fixed elections dates unless under certain circumstances. The cirumstance being that if a bureaucrat was to resign, such as what Tanaric did, I suppose we need to fill up that spot as quickly as possible. Luckily, when Tanaric resigned, an election was very close, but what if a bureaucrat resigned way before an election was due? — ク Eloc 貢 00:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

What about fixed terms? -- Gordon Ecker 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

A fixed term of 6 months would be appropriate I suppose, but maybe if someone resigns, we could have an election to have someone fill in the remainder of that term or just have their term being 6 months long even though they were elected from someone resigning. — ク Eloc 貢 16:11, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Obviously, I oppose this proposal, but I'll spare everyone the horror of reiterating what I've already said elsewhere. *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:48, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Also... "The candidates are ranked from first to last according to net votes, if two candidates have an equal number of net votes, the candidate with a lower number of net votes is ranked above the candidate with a lower number of net votes..." makes no sense. Perhaps you mean to say the candidate with a higher number of support votes is ranked above the candidate with a lower number of support votes or something along those lines? *Defiant Elements* +talk 03:50, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, pretty much every criticism of the current policy other than the one about ties and the one about vacant seats can be applied to this one as well. As for that line, it was originally "negative" votes, when I was writing up the draft, I accidentally changed "negative" to "net" rather than "opposing", it's fixed now. -- Gordon Ecker 04:30, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This draft is intended to address the issues of ties and empty seats if draft 3 is rejected or stalls. If draft 3 is implemented, the issue of ties will have been addressed, and I'll try to address the issue of vacant seats by proposing the addition of at least one more bureaucrat seat. -- Gordon Ecker 04:58, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

This is a significant step in "moving away from discussion", since it is giving more weight to votes, or rather it's formalising what's usually the general understanding of most users regarding the meaning of the votes. What I still fail to gauge is whether users prefer to lean towards discussion or lean towards voting. While I've asked users to continue with the discussion at Guild Wars Wiki talk:Elections, it's pretty obvious that if this proposal gets significant support, I'll have to steer in a different direction in the talks there. -- ab.er.rant 03:36, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

I as well have a concern about the lack of discussion in this policy. I would suggest possibly an additional stage (3 days) between Nominations and Voting, to allow the community a chance to discuss the various candidates. I don't see allowing discussion addressed anywhere in this policy, other than potentially 'between the lines' during the Nomination process and during the Voting process. I highly value a chance to discuss with other members of the community, as well as with the candidates themselves, but restricting the discussion to only during either the nomination stage, or the election stage makes casting votes based on informed reasoning with input from all parties difficult.-- Wynthyst 15:38, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

I've modified Guild Wars Wiki:Elections/Draft 3 to add in the merging of the voting and discussion stages. The "Deciding winners" stage here and there are somewhat similar. Think it's a good idea to try to merge the two drafts? I think a section on vacated seats is quite warranted. -- ab.er.rant 07:21, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, there are some elements of this proposal (tying up various loose ends) that are not covered in Draft 3; I wouldn't mind a merge, particularly the section on vacated seats and the notes about unequal term lengths. *Defiant Elements* +talk 14:36, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

I still believe strongly that discussion should take place before voting, such as during the nominating stage. It's simply a matter of fact that there will almost certainly be for each candidate at least one person adamantly opposed to supporting that candidate. And it will often be the case that two well-qualified candidates will receive nearly equal support with few supporters willing to swap sides. In such a case, discussion would be a waste of time if it came after the voting. Who decides which side won? The loudest side wins? That seems fraught with disaster. If serious discussion and promotion would actually take place during the nominating stage, then the results of the voting stage in most instances should become very predictable except in cases of two well-qualified candidates. In such a case, as said, discussion would be a barbaric way of determining a winner and voting would be a more civilized and precise gauge of determining the effects of discussion. To allow discussion to determine the ultimate verdict is to assign the more vocal and persistent group the victory, when most likely the attributes that lead to such vocality are pride and stubbornness - anathema to the qualities we ought to seek in judges and arbiters. Discussion is the most important aspect of an election. Why do you think there is so much campaigning and debates in the American election processes? Voting is simply a way to formalize which candidates views and qualities are most represented and weell-received by the community. I am so glad that the President is not decided by who wins the most debates. To discuss someone into office is silly at best. But to vote on someone whose merits has not been discussed is equally silly and potentially dangerous. Mohnzh say what? 17:15, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Vacated seats

With the term expiring at the next election, will the next bcrat on that seat get a shortened term? Or is this a proposal to get rid of phasing of elelections? Backsword 05:05, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

Under the current draft, it would technically be decided on a case by case basis during stage 0. -- Gordon Ecker 06:06, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

That's no good. Policy states anyone can do stage 0, so it would be decided by whomever is quickest. Backsword 04:51, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Stage 0 could be lengthened to allow more time for discussion. Fixed election periods and standardized terms would also resolve the issue. -- Gordon Ecker 20:45, 8 May 2008 (UTC)