Onto the topic of voting (but not the voting, just yet)

[Ryushikaze]

Goliath wrote:

Just have two or three polls one after the other guys. Not that hard.

Wasn't saying they would be. Just longish, since everyone needs time to vote.

[Ryushikaze]

Right, so here's the current system I am thinking of to give every nominee their fair shake, give everyone their confidentiality, and hopefully get through this without wasting too terribly much time.

After the conclusion of the Q and A period, probably that will be Thursday, a list of all the moderator nominations will be posted.
Each member who wishes to vote can take that list and PM it to a member of staff to be selected who will process the votes. Top 2/3 nominees go forward. That voting takes 2 days. Next round, repeat of the same, until it is winnowed to the last 3 moderators.

Voting itself will take the form of PMing the list to the selected member of staff with a +, -, or equals next to the nominee name, for approve, disapprove, and ambivalence/ do not care.
Additional notes can be added to these messages as desired, but are not required.

Does this sound acceptable to everyone? Any suggestions or improvements you would like to add?

[Cookie Monster]

I still don't understand why everyone has to go through the trouble of PMing people. Last time we did this, we used polls. We're making things more complicated than they need to be. But, whatever.

[Rumpelstiltskin]

Gonna agree with my main hombre here.
Pming your yes and no's seems rather ridiculous when it's easier just to put up polls.
At least then members can watch the progression also.

[Tifabelle]

I mean, if other people agree with that, then I'll concede. But it seems to me it would be a whole lot less trouble to just make individual threads. It's still private. And tbh, I think more people would be inclined to participate in the polls than to PM someone. idk, that's my two cents, let anyone else weigh in on it.

[Joe]

Sending a PM takes about as much time as making a post or two (something we all do) so honestly it's just as simple as putting up a poll. If we make a poll however, I'd put my two cents and say that it ought to be private.

We want people voting on the nominees merits. If the poll is public then it encourages strategic voting which really shouldn't be the case here.

Either way, it's all easy enough.

[Cookie Monster]

There's a problem with creating individual polls. There are going to be several morons that'll cast votes in every thread, which could lead to multiple people tying for positions.

Iirc, polls have always been private when it comes to these sorts of things. And polls lessen the chance of human error which could occur with PMs.

[Flintlock]

Goliath wrote:

There's a problem with creating individual polls. There are going to be several morons that'll cast votes in every thread, which could lead to multiple people tying for positions.

And, iirc, polls have always been private when it comes to these sorts of things. And polls lessen the chance of human error which could occur with PMs.

I thought the whole idea was that you could vote in individual polls? That way you can vote either yes or no for everyone. The candidates with the greatest number of net positive votes would become staff. Otherwise there really would be no point in having multiple polls

[Tifabelle]

yeah, there's definitely pros and cons to both of the options. So it's just a matter of which appears to be the lesser of two evils.

imo though Road, everyone should have an opinion on each candidate. Although, I can see how it would be a problem because there's no weight to say I prefer one more than another. But in that regard, the polls vs the PM both have that same issue. I could PM the list with + next to each candidate all the same as voting "yes" in every poll.

[Tifabelle]

Flintlock wrote:

I thought the whole idea was that you could vote in individual polls? That way you can vote either yes or no for everyone. The candidates with the greatest number of net positive votes would become staff. Otherwise there really would be no point in having multiple polls

I actually agree with you Flint. But what Road is saying though is this. Let's just say everyone voted yes on every candidate. Well then all the candidates are tied. Then what?

Although in the case of a tie, I guess I'd leave it up to either current staff or yop by himself to cast the final say.

[Flintlock]

Chris Redfield wrote:

I actually agree with you Flint. But what Road is saying though is this. Let's just say everyone voted yes on every candidate. Well then all the candidates are tied. Then what?

Then... rock paper scissors?

Seriously though, I think that's pretty unlikely, but even if nobody voted "no" for any candidates, some people would probably get more yes votes than others. And if there really is a tie, Yop or the admins together can choose from the tied candidates.

[Cookie Monster]

We simply have one poll with everyone on it, and leave that up for 3 days or so. The winner gets the position. Rinse and repeat two more times.

[Tifabelle]

yeah. Bottom line is that I'm still in favor of the polls, but I can see the pros and cons of both sides.

[Dawnbreaker]

As much as a PM would appear to be a better way of doing things, IMO, there's too much leeway to run the risk of something getting missed or mixed up. Then, instead of avoiding drama, that's all you'll get.

Polls are pretty straightforward. No misconceptions.

[looneymoon]

I guess it would be a bad idea to vote ironically wouldn't it?
Because that could very potentially bite me in the ass

but how am I going to get votes lest it be for the ironic ones