Locked.

[Dwarven King]

Either three or four.

[Sora1499]

4's the best option. Just get the damn thing over with.

[Night]

This whole thing was at first only supposed to help the moderators make a more educated decision.

If Mihails is content with Seattleite being the new moderator, I don't see why any one should have a problem with it regardless of the process.

 

However if not, I believe the 4th option is the most viable.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

This whole thing was at first only supposed to help the moderators make a more educated decision.

 

He didn't say anything about that at all.

 

If Mihails is content with Seattleite being the new moderator, I don't see why any one should have a problem with it regardless of the process.

 

Because the way it was done was horrible. Seattleite has no mandate from the people at all, especially since he really can't claim he won with it being so close and with barely anytime for people to make an educated decision.

[Night]

He didn't say anything about that at all.

 

Oh, I forgot you had access to the Moderator's Forum.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

Oh, I forgot you don't have access to the Moderator's Forum.

 

Fix'd. If that was the case, Mikhal should have said that to everyone from the beginning.

[Agro]

Fix'd. If that was the case, Mikhal should have said that to everyone from the beginning.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/sarcasm

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

http://dictionary.re.../browse/sarcasm

 

You should know me by now, Agro. I can joke around, though I'm still not good at it.

[Kitty]

What I got 0 votes?!?! Screw you YCM. :I I'm still takin over. :P

 

J/k

 

I'd say go with four. Obviously you mods don't want us picking the mod position. YCM members are not known for picking well. Just saying.

[seattleite]

I would still be honored to take the Moderator position, but if an alternate vote is more fair then I can't complain.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

I would still be honored to take the Moderator position, but if an alternate vote is more fair then I can't complain.

 

The problem is though, you achieved 22.2%, I repeat, 22.2% of the vote. I don't think we can make anyone a mod with this result. And thanks for being understanding about the Alternate Vote. It would give more candidates a better chance and give a more accurate result, considering there were 10 candidates and Winner Takes All sucks with that many people.

[Guest - Neo -]

Maybe host a second election with the four of us who got the most votes? Idk.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

Maybe host a second election with the four of us who got the most votes? Idk.

 

Problem: Four way tie for 3rd. Though, one of them was a troll application, so you could say it was only a three way tie. Would the five people with the most votes work?

[Guest Hatcher]

This whole thing was at first only supposed to help the moderators make a more educated decision.

The original 3 elections were primarily used for that, yes. Mik however seemed to indicate that it would be YCM-ers making a direct decision, that their vote would have a direct impact on what was going on.

 

If Mihails is content with Seattleite being the new moderator, I don't see why any one should have a problem with it regardless of the process.

The process was (allegedly) meant to be more fair the our Alternate Vote + Mod's Have Final Say way of doing it.

 

Twenty two percent is not fairness. Twenty two percent is not democracy. Twenty two percent is indefensible.

[Mehmani]

The original 3 elections were primarily used for that, yes. Mik however seemed to indicate that it would be YCM-ers making a direct decision, that their vote would have a direct impact on what was going on.

 

 

The process was (allegedly) meant to be more fair the our Alternate Vote + Mod's Have Final Say way of doing it.

 

Twenty two percent is not fairness. Twenty two percent is not democracy. Twenty two percent is indefensible.

 

I'm quietly smiling at how much you criticize me for using rhetoric and being all overblown and passionate. I'm also laughing at how you are saying that an oligarchy calling a sham election and then deciding which of their friends and/or people they personally respect or think are "good for the job" is fairer than getting the people to have a direct say in the matter. As good as it is, AV is not an option. Yes, it's a fairer system, and yes, I actually support the use of it in IRL elections, but given how many replies I have seen in this thread that refer to "my friends not being bothered to vote", using AV, which it must be said is a more complex system, seems to me like something we wouldn't want to do if we want to make the election more representative i.e. getting more people to vote. This election would probably have been a lot more representative if I had had some support from the Mod Forum (which I have never had in almost anything I care to do, I might add) in helping make this a site-wide campaign, something I feel would be far more effective in generating a larger electorate, and in turn a fairer election.

 

We can improve this election by making it less taxing to vote. We do this by cutting the number of candidates. Helpfully, the fact that we had a couple of troll candidates already does this job for us. So immediately we have a smaller number of candidates. Then we get a site-wide campaign going. We post an announcement saying there's an election for a new CC mod and you can vote. We have some simple opinion pieces detailing the problems of RC and the best way to solve them, so as to inform people if they choose to read them. Then we extend the election to a week and allow the votes to be recounted. If that still does not satisfy you, then we have another election after that with the top two candidates from the previous one.

[Guest Ginko The Mushi Master]

I'm quietly smiling at how much you criticize me for using rhetoric and being all overblown and passionate. I'm also laughing at how you are saying that an oligarchy calling a sham election and then deciding which of their friends and/or people they personally respect or think are "good for the job" is fairer than getting the people to have a direct say in the matter. As good as it is, AV is not an option. Yes, it's a fairer system, and yes, I actually support the use of it in IRL elections, but given how many replies I have seen in this thread that refer to "my friends not being bothered to vote", using AV, which it must be said is a more complex system, seems to me like something we wouldn't want to do if we want to make the election more representative i.e. getting more people to vote. This election would probably have been a lot more representative if I had had some support from the Mod Forum (which I have never had in almost anything I care to do, I might add) in helping make this a site-wide campaign, something I feel would be far more effective in generating a larger electorate, and in turn a fairer election.

 

We can improve this election by making it less taxing to vote. We do this by cutting the number of candidates. Helpfully, the fact that we had a couple of troll candidates already does this job for us. So immediately we have a smaller number of candidates. Then we get a site-wide campaign going. We post an announcement saying there's an election for a new CC mod and you can vote. We have some simple opinion pieces detailing the problems of RC and the best way to solve them, so as to inform people if they choose to read them. Then we extend the election to a week and allow the votes to be recounted. If that still does not satisfy you, then we have another election after that with the top two candidates from the previous one.

Mihail I dislike being a skeptic but...

 

I don't think many of the Mods have either appreciated or supported your idea and would rather not advertise for it.

[Legend Zero]

If you wanted us to help advertise I would've helped. I just let you do your thing because I feel out of place in CC. :S

 

So yeah, if you want advertisement then just say when.

[Shinobi Phoenix]

A: A true election day (actual day of voting) is ONE DAY, it wouldn't have even been the 2 days we got. Admittedly, there has always been complaints that elections should be moved to days people have off or at least Election Day should be a holiday so people have the time available to go vote, but it still one day. This helps pear down complications and attempts to manipulate votes. It should be one day.

 

 

B: It especially should be one day because you all had WAY MORE than a week to decide and know the people who are propositioning. If you actually care so much about the forum and the community, you ALREADY SHOULD KNOW THE PEOPLE HERE and their likes and wants (not just general wants and complaints, which change every day), especially the ones who claim to want the position under the premise of wanting to help the community. If you want to help the community, you should already have been making it a habit to get to know them. In real life (especially in America), candidates aren't just surprised on you and thrown at you within a week of the election. The candidates who normally make it that far are the ones that the public had the most knowledge of to make such a judgment in the first place and new up and coming candidates you get several months to get to know them even more they announce the idea of being a candidate (usually people suggest it to them to do it). For a real example: We all fully expect Cory Booker of New Jersey to run for President in 2020 or 2024 (after a two-term Hillary Clinton reign of course). We are already getting to know who he is long before he ever runs or even decides to. The excuse that people didn't have time to make an educated decision is bunk. They CHOOSE not to make one by not caring about anyone but people they like anyway up until such things as an election comes up (IE: Elections are always about popularity and getting the winner to give you what you want, period).

 

 

C: Yes, candidates should be curbed down to make it streamlined, but do realize that even the Presidential Elections have more than 2 candidates, it's the fact that we only WANT to focus on the "main" 2 and they get advertised to us regularly, but there are always several other candidates. Anyone who has ever ACTUALLY voted would know that. I know many of you here are actually in your teens, so you have DEFINITELY NEVER VOTED IN ANY OFFICIAL, MAJOR, AND LEGAL CAPACITY (and certainly more than Presidential). It wasn't that there was too many candidates (there's always more than 2 and someone can write you in), it's that we haven't pared FOCUS on candidates you are interested in and those candidates DIDN'T advertise. Elections are multi-tiered to pare down focus on candidates, but not necessarily number of them. You want to be a representative of a certain "party" who represents what you wish to bring to the job, but even that only goes so far as there are others who can still be written in and they will still be in similar parties with similar ideologies.

If you want to restrict this down to only two candidates for simplicity (have preliminaries to pare down candidates), you can, but it takes more time for something NOT THAT SERIOUS and it only makes it "majority" vote by the percentage of paring (as in "there's only two pieces of the pie"), because 50% of the vote with so many candidates AND so few people caring to vote is NEVER going to happen. 22% of the vote is still the biggest piece of the pie you were going to get with that many pieces. Countries are changed on less than that. Mormons are 8% of California, they pushed around 60% of the money for Proposition 8 to screw over millions of innocent people. It's about the push, not the numbers of candidates, not the time to decide, not the number of days for the election duration.

 

 

D: I totally agree that most of what people are suggesting CAN BE DONE AS NORMAL members, so as I said from the very beginning, most of being a mod is really about the power or the idea in thinking that the title gives you influence. The idea that being a mod means enforcing your ideals, you want the power. People know that. If people cared to help, they would do that, but they don't even comment on anyone but friends anyway. Still not a community.

 

 

E: If people cared, they would have voted. If you needed more time, you didn't care to know any of those people BEFORE the election was even an thought or the position was available. If it was actually about trust and doing a good job for your community, you wouldn't complain about the result just because you didn't win. You should still be going forth to do EXACTLY what you planned and if you need mod power to do it, you GET A MOD TO HELP. The ones who didn't win complain because they want the power to do as they wish uninterrupted. Obama won the election, we still get to hold his feet to the fire to get what we want.

 

 

 

 

 

Incidentally, I had plenty of time to vote, but I decided against it. I honestly don't know any of you people enough to decide who is mature enough not to abuse the power or deal with all the immature voices who would complain about not winning anyway AND ESPECIALLY who has actually actively tried to help without the power. Though I tell you, I would have voted for Raine or Neo since they were formers and I appreciate a candidate with a sense of humor. I do no that I see who actually comments and helps people versus just telling people want to do and that they are wrong instead of helping someone get to doing what they want to make. That is a huge problem. I just want a passionate unbiased mind who cares about helping more than pushing their agenda on others (whether they have the power or not). Help someone get to making the cards they want to make (correctly), not telling them how to make their card into one you think they should make. If I've seen you do that, I definitely wasn't voting for you.

[bury the year]

Since all the mods seem to be ringing in, I'll add my two cents and say that this was poorly handled. Although I don't know much about what CC needs, due to not frequenting the section at all anymore, I'll only support an elected candidate if they win a majority percentage of the total votes after a certain extended timeframe. (I could rant about how I don't think popular elections are at all workable on a site like YCM, but I'm sure people have heard the basic logic enough already so I'll leave that alone.)

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

After reading Mikhal's post, I have a simple question that I would like clarification on: are we redoing the election or not? It seems Mikhail is open to that, but I'm just making sure.

[Guest - Neo -]

I PM'd him to ask for clarification because I do plan on running again. I assume he'll get back to us tomorrow as its late over there and I believe he has kids, so I'd assume he's got some other priorities.

[Guest Nathanael Darius Striker]

I PM'd him to ask for clarification because I do plan on running again. I assume he'll get back to us tomorrow as its late over there and I believe he has kids, so I'd assume he's got some other priorities.

 

I plan on running again as well. And both of us should get on MSN sometime.

[.Leo]

Alright. I think Mikhail has a point. We should cut off some of the candidates and have a new vote and think it out more carefully.

 

Though I still believe that the moderators should decided themselves who becomes a mod and who doesn't.

[Guest Hatcher]

I'm also laughing at how you are saying that an oligarchy calling a sham election and then deciding which of their friends and/or people they personally respect or think are "good for the job" is fairer than getting the people to have a direct say in the matter.

I normally don't get all bothered by anything anyone on YCM says because I have like... absolutely no respect for anyone on YCM so it's like being hated on by a dog or a cat or some other lesser lifeform.

 

And I'm fine with being disrespected back because I have all the class of a shoe full of potato salad. But don't you dare try to belittle Legend Zero, evilfusion and Sephiroth_the_Legend by saying they were elected in a sham election and try to lessen what contributions they've made to the board and the sections they've been assigned. Especially since you yourself were appointed by JoshIcy without an election.

 

tl;dr - funk you.

 

As good as it is, AV is not an option. Yes, it's a fairer system, and yes, I actually support the use of it in IRL elections, but given how many replies I have seen in this thread that refer to "my friends not being bothered to vote", using AV, which it must be said is a more complex system, seems to me like something we wouldn't want to do if we want to make the election more representative i.e. getting more people to vote.

I have no interest in getting more people to vote. If they don't wanna vote, it's a waste of my time and energy to get them to vote, a waste of their time and energy to actually vote, and a further waste of my time and energy to read over and sort through all their votes.

 

What I want is for people's votes to actually matter. And presumably when people realize their votes actually do matter they'll be more inclined to vote.

 

This election would probably have been a lot more representative if I had had some support from the Mod Forum (which I have never had in almost anything I care to do, I might add) in helping make this a site-wide campaign, something I feel would be far more effective in generating a larger electorate, and in turn a fairer election.

When 5 or 6 mods outwardly do not support the things you are suggesting, maybe it's time to rethink your strategy. Are you really the sole voice of reason in a sea of madness or is your idea just really terrible?

 

In any case I was never asked for help. I can not say for certain whether or not the rest were asked, though if I had to venture a guess I think the safe bet is on no for them as well. I found out about the election by noticing the "Democracy on my YCM" topic in General. And what small bits of advice I managed to give [1][2] were routinely ignored so I figured I might as well stop wasting my time writing something you either weren't gonna read or weren't gonna consider.

 

But if you want my help now:

 

1) There's no need for a goddamn manifesto. Most of the people aren't gonna change their mind because of what someone posted. The few that do will mostly be influenced by when it was posted, either the first few (because they quit at the beginning) or the last few (because that's what stuck out in their mind when it came time to vote, because they read that part last). And that's not getting into the fact that the last few will have a distinct advantage of knowing everything the first posters had in mind, and taking up parts of it and tweaking it.

 

2) There's no need to do multi-stage candidate crap. "Are you guys interested in being a YCM mod?" "Are you guys STILL interested in being a YCM mod?" Unless you presented new information between those two there's no reason to ask the question a second time.

 

3) FPTP should never be used for any system with more then two choices. I don't really have to explain why, right?

 

4) Plan the whole process out all at once and clearly spell it out in the very first topic for everyone else so everyone knows exactly what to expect. If your plan involves someone else (like someone with access to an admin account to actually do the actual promoting, for example) then run it by them and get them to agree with what. If you're gonna moan something about tyrannical rule or some other nonsense, you should remember that you can't have it both ways. You can't complain about getting no help and then complain when you do get help.

 

5) Forty hours is really not a lot of time, especially for something that wasn't advertised at all. Sure, most people knew who they were voting for. How many of them had jobs, had other obligations, or just plain missed the topic when it was first posted? Especially since you didn't say in any of the topics when voting would begin (until voting actually began).

 

6) There's really no need for a manifesto. I feel this really needs repeating because writing a shitload isn't part of the job of being a moderator. The main job is dealing with trolls and spammers. I think a very good litmus test is to check out the goddamn Report Queue and see who actually reports spam and trolls and stuff. It shows they actually visit the forums you're talking about, shows they actually recognize what is and isn't spam, and shows they actually care enough about the board that they wanna clean it up. (which is also why I keep nominating the person that I nominated in the Staff Forum BTW)

 

All of the above is pretty much common sense kind of stuff and I have no idea why it was so brazenly overlooked.