Forum:New IRC channel/Archive

Votes for +F
Rules:
 * 1) One person one vote.
 * 2) No voting for yourself.
 * 3) Only active members of the channel should vote. No sockpuppeting to get votes.


 * Charitwo
 * 1) Charitwo is basically the de facto leader of the channel already. He is experienced and can be trusted with +F.--
 * 2) Charitwo is the person who I'd choose if I couldn't choose myself, I can't choose myself, so I choose Charit --  Random Time  22:51, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Randomtime


 * VegaDark


 * Godisme


 * ZamorakO o


 * Monchoman45


 * Rappy 4187
 * 1) I vote for the 4187'th Rappy.22:28, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 2)  N7  &#91; T &#124; C &#93; 22:29, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 3) 1358  (Talk)  23:27, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * 4) Straw polls ftw! 22:21, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Jazzi


 * Tm_t


 * Cook me Plox


 * Jack Phoenix
 * 1) He doth possess mine full faith and trust. Goodwood 23:21, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

Comments
Voting at this stage? I think a better thing to do would be to narrow it down to 3 or so nominations, and then vote - a bit like an RFA, you talk about the candidate's strengths and weaknesses before deciding --  Random Time  22:34, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * Frankly I think discussion would dissolve far before we ever got it down to 3 candidates. People are interested in voting right now. No one is going to change their mind after a discussion, this just saves times.--
 * If nobody is willing to take a good look at the evidence and make an informed decision then something is wrong with how things work here. 22:36, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't mind a split +F with a few trusted users - which would allow for a bit of redundancy --  Random Time  22:37, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I would likewise be fine with that. Redundancy leads to less of a cabal, which is a good thing imo. Recommend that people be allowed to vote for their top two/three choices. 22:41, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Single vote still works. Instead of a winner take all we just make it the top 3 get the flag.--
 * Then can we have opposing votes as well? There's a huge difference between someone with 3 supports and 5 neutrals and someone with 4 supports and 4 opposes. 22:48, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't see any reason why not. One oppose vote per person should be fine.--
 * Poor Ajr, redundancy allows more members of the cabal --  Random Time  22:50, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * But more people in a cabal makes it less of a cabal, or so experience would say. More of something makes it less of a bit deal, thus detaching some value from it since it is more common. Further allowing new ops/+Fs by some sort of community discussion will make this even less of a cabal, which is a good thing. 22:54, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * (Edit conflict.) I don't think voting is the best option. I don't think someone winning by one vote is considered a consensus, especially if there're are good reasons given for why the person short of one vote is the better candidate and not as much for the person who won by one. But I think if someone wins a vote by a high margin, consensus is clear. e.g. If 99% of people are in favour of something it's a clear consensus and if 51% are in favour and 49% are against, it's not a clear consensus. If we are going to make this a vote, I'd say instead of voting for one person, people should vote either in favour or against each candidate. Candidates who get more than 80% support, get +F, candidates who get less don't. If nobody gets more than 80%, then whoever gets the highest gets +F. If too many people get higher than 80%, raise the bar to 90%. -- Deltaneos (talk) 22:52, October 29, 2011 (UTC)

(Reset indent) We really should've sorted out the voting system before we voted, throw the book at the person who started the poll. I agree with delta --  Random Time  22:53, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Great idea, Deltaneos. That sounds even better than one support and one oppose. 22:54, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Ill throw a book at you RT. Sheesh, I was just trying to make a nice democratic voting system. Go ahead and do it your way you socialists :).--
 * How about User:Randomtime/votetable as a voting idea? Any more candidates to add? Thanks for the complement Godisme --  Random Time  23:03, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * How about removing some bureaucracy and just going with Deltaneos' idea? I really don't see the benefits of max 3 support and 3 oppose... 23:12, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * My thinking of that is you have to express a preference, and stops people voting for absolutely everyone --  Random Time  23:13, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * Agreed. -- 23:19, October 29, 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't think it's necessary to restrict it to three support and three oppose. What's wrong with people giving their opinion on each candidate? If there were ten RfAs on a wiki, I don't think it would be fair to restrict people to only comment on six and only be allowed to support up to three and oppose up to three. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:39, October 29, 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'm allowed to vote, but I show up every so often. Anyways, this vote is showing basically the results I agree with and what most people think. You got 4 good respected moderators listed here, and then there is the rest (not saying I don't like the rest). The only way anyone else would win is to make the voting more messy and less fair. Live with the results. 4 mods. Devilmanozzy  (Talk Page)  04:53, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * This is a vote for +F (founder/channel owner), not mods/ops. -- 04:58, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I am sticking with my three votes. :) Devilmanozzy  (Talk Page)  05:02, October 30, 2011 (UTC)
 * I think this is a very poor way to make decisions. Have everyone vote on everyone, even if it includes neutrals. Also, let everyone vote. The current ops certainly appear to be cementing their place as privileged users by excluding the votes of people who go against them under the muddy idea of activity. It looks really bad and the way to keep it honest is to let anyone vote. Cook Me Plox 06:23, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

How are we going to decide OPs? Or is that just up to the discretion of whoever has +F? --Callofduty4 21:04, October 30, 2011 (UTC)

The new voting system
Because we can't agree on anything, let alone a system so we can agree on something Max 3 support votes and 3 oppose votes, can't vote for self. Votes are tallied at the end (whenever that is)

Voting Comments
Looking at the controversy surrounding everything and the way this has turned into a game of personal attacks and petty fights. Something needs to be done here. My solution is this. We start with 2 +Fs. Those being VegaDark and Randomtime as there seems to be a great amount of support and pretty much no concerns surrounding those two. Once we have that made, discussion can refocus on two things. 1, whether anyone else should receive +F and who and 2. Who should be an op in the channel. I say discussion and not voting as I think this vote has turned to much into personal attacks and agendas rather than a fair vote based on who would make the best candidate. So in short, I propose we stop the vote now, give +F to Randomtime and VegaDark and then continue discussion of ops and if we need another +F and who.--
 * Support. +F should not be the largest concern of this discussion. 22:08, October 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'd still rather do as Rappy suggested and have something like an RfA for each of the candidates. I'd like to see comments and Q&A on potential +F candidates before they're are chosen. I don't think decisions should be based on pure votes and giving Randomtime and VegaDark +F because they've had the most support and no oppose votes and little discussion has been posted on them so far is doing just that. -- Deltaneos (talk) 23:40, October 30, 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm starting to agree with you Delta. This whole forum has basically turned into a big forum to discuss why charitwo should not receive any rights and has not made mention of any other person. Ajr proposed a subpage for choosing ops and a subpage for choosing +F. I think this would be best.--
 * However, I'm sure Charitwo appreciates all the feedback he was given. :) 03:04, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * Something like that. Business as usual is no longer business as usual...or something. -- 03:06, October 31, 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree. The current format does not support the in-depth analysis that should be done for individual candidates. Cook Me Plox 03:13, October 31, 2011 (UTC)