RationalWiki talk:Elections to the Loya Jirga/February 2010

Any limitations on how many one can nom? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Nom? depends on your stamina I suppose... Totnesmartin (talk) 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Whats the voting procedure? Etaroced (talk) 21:43, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Can I play? Crundy^{Talk nerdy to me} 21:44, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Just seconding ToP's and Ace's nomination. -- 21:47, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Toast: no. Etaroced: until we decide the powers and limitations of the LJ and how we revamp the voting, we won't vote. Word cubic Hoover! 21:48, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I think we agreed that the Loya Jirga be made up of 7 'crats... but I don't know if that means members get made 'crats, or have to be 'crats already. Broccoli (talk) 21:49, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

'cratting someone is a different procedure than this. I don't people should be made 'crats just for this. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:51, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a big enough thing to organise, and getting new crats would just complicate things at the moment. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:02, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

(EC) On WP (zzzz) admin hopefuls have to go through a rigorous interview process (which has put me right off ever applying) in which they have to answer searching questions. Maybe a less intensive version of that? Or just spin the bottle? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Might I suggest that voting rights be restricted to users who have been around for some time and who are not known socks.--Bob^{It's cold!} 22:06, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Sounds good. But how are we going to elect the 7? Does each person only get 1 vote, or 7 votes? How will this work? Broccoli (talk) 22:08, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Seven per user seems sensible. Word cubic Hoover! 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Voting procedure

Once we get what they will do sorted out, I suggest we set a time limit on voting, keep the voting and discussion on separate pages and restrict voting to users who have been here for (say) two months and aren't socks. Once the limit is up, we instate the members. Word cubic Hoover! 22:09, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

We need guidelines and responsibilites first. Aceⁱ⁹ 22:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was saying. Word cubic Hoover! 22:13, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

The crats

Here's a list of the crats who put their names down for it:

Yurp

• Weaseloid
• Toast
• Phantom Hoover
• SuperJosh
• Totnesmartin

Murika

• TheoryOfPractice
• Aboriginal Noise

Kanadia

• Kels

Down under

• Ace

'Crats?

I don't think everyone on the list is a 'crat. Is going to be 'crats or everyone? Aceⁱ⁹ 22:15, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I thought it was just crats, so those are the only ones I copied across here. There were about 4 people I think we aren't crats. --^{Ask me about your mother} 22:18, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

You should take care with crats. Remember that User:Theemperor (and his multiple names)is thought to be a sock of Marcus.--Hitman (talk) 14:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Nice one, MC. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:02, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not Marcus. I'm talking about the edit that Theemperor made at ASK. Check out RWW.--Hitman (talk) 14:10, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

http://rationalwikiwiki.org/wiki/Theemperor

Thanks, now go away and play elsewhere. Persons who create accounts purely for the purpose of being negatively snarky are likely to be disregarded. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 14:39, 1 February 2010 (UTC) (Better link ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

And shall feel the wrathful power of the Loya Jirga. All hail the Loya Jirga! ;) -- 15:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting

Should candidates vote? Another question; when voting, do you list your name, then the 7 names you vote for? Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 20:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought we would have separate level-4 headers for each candidate and have people sign their username under each. Word cubic Hoover! 20:42, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

If candidates do not vote, I think we will have very few people actually voting... ListenerX^TalkerX 20:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Candidates should be allowed to vote, since we are voting for more than one person it'd be silly for them not to have a say along with everyone else on who else should be in the LJ (also assuming everyone nominated votes for themselves as one of their 7 options, that action would be self cancelling) -- 20:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

franchise: only members on or before 30th Jan? ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:20, 1 February 2010 (UTC)(i.e. before Forum LJ was created)

That is good. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(disenfranchises:

• 1 February 2010 Moghopper
• 1 February 2010 Hitman ‎
• 31 January 2010 Michael ‎
• 31 January 2010 Colonel of Squirrels
• 31 January 2010 Moonriddengirl ‎
• 31 January 2010 Vm‎
• 31 January 2010 Doc Holiday

^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 20:28, 1 February 2010 (UTC) Just btw one of them might, or might not, be my sock ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)}

Doc Holiday? Aceⁱ⁹ 20:33, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Should be "Holliday." Disenfranchised for that reason alone.--^(talk) 20:40, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

How many of my socks are allowed to vote? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't get me and the rest of MarcusCicero's socks started... ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I just thought of something: are we just going with simple majority here, or will we cut out candidates until 7 clear winners emerge? Broccoli (talk) 21:43, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is such granularity that there will likely have to be runoffs. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:45, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

STOP VOTING!!!

And let me tidy it up! Word cubic Hoover! 20:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, was baout to say its a complete fucking mess. Aceⁱ⁹ 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Sorry. I got confused and put all my votes in the "Nominations" section. ListenerX^TalkerX 20:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm fed up with ECs. Any votes lost you'll have to reinsert yourself. Word cubic Hoover! 20:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it was a very bad idea to put all the voting on one page. Captain Obvious (talk) 20:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Really? What would you suggest? Word cubic Hoover! 20:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A subpage for every nominee? Captain Obvious (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeoman Obvious. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 20:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Think I'll come back to it when the furore has died down after being ECd FOUR times. (and TWICE here!) ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:00, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Where is the place to express opinions?

And make reasoned arguments / baseless accusations against nominees? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block}

Here, I suppose. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Maybe Captain Obvious was right about the subpages...this could get messy. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that, aside from being the kind of pompous ass that votes for him/herself, ListenerX will hijack this wiki, creating and tirelessly defending off-mission, pet articles to coincide with his endless, psuedoscientific biases. If don't you want a bunch off bullshit articles, constant reference to Gödel's incompleteness theorems and Reds, Reds, Reds, don't vote for ListenerX. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Should have called myself Aardvark. @Nu: too true, if the LJ were dictating content, but they're not. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, LX actually creates articles and is not obviously insane. Broccoli (talk) 21:19, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

And as said elsewhere, his *different* views make him a good defence against groupthink. He's not "one of us." Totnesmartin (talk) 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Goat

Why the hell isn't there a "goat" category to vote for? Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:14, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd like to vote for the mob. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:16, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is no such option. Captain Obvious (talk) 21:18, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is now a goat option. Tetronian ^{you're clueless} 21:35, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Voting for yourself?

I note ListenerX has voted for himself. Are we allowing that? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Word cubic Hoover! 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Me neither. Users are expressing their views on which 7 memebers would make the best Loya Jirga HCM avoidance team. Broccoli (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Didn't really mind, was just wondering. Aceⁱ⁹ 21:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think it's okay, but should reflect poorly. It's clear that someone who votes for themselves is the lake woebegone kind of assclown that we wouldn't want having the power they are so desperate for. There are lots of other great choices. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Politicians can vote for themselves, why not us? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I think nominees should vote for themselves - it's ok and shows they have an interest in the job. Refugee^{talk page} 01:43, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, no point voting for someone who doesn't even think that they themselves are worthy. PS, what's the job pay? ħuman 02:03, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

"Uncampaigning"

Following the above, since I have no intention to vote for myself, can I recommend that the kind folks who voted for me re-allocate that vote? And if I get back down to zero, strike or delete me from the list so no one else makes a similar sincere but dangerous mistake. ħuman 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Tied votes

Sod's law says it'll happen if we don't have a way of sorting it: what about tied votes? Do we go down to number of crats who voted? Most page views on their RWW page? Most interesting sig? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:51, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Battle to the death? Aceⁱ⁹ 21:54, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

We're on different continents, what we gonna use, ICBMs? Totnesmartin (talk) 21:55, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've only used 6 votes in case of this eventuality. ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I have speculated that there will have to be runoffs. ListenerX^TalkerX 21:57, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Alphabetical order. Aboriginal Noise ^{Theist, barely hanging by a nail} 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See my second comment below under more-more-more. We'll use IRV, except it won't be very instant since we'll be doing it manually. ħuman 02:12, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

This is not the content you are looking for. Move along. --The Emperor _{Kneel before Zod!} 02:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

WTF

How the hell did I get so many votes? I never even paid anyone much! --Kels (talk) 21:56, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

A guy can hope for reciprocation, can't he? ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 21:58, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

you post drawings of naked women. I never post mine up (they're shite) so I'm trailing badly. Totnesmartin (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

'cause we like you. Simples! ^yummy &  ^honey_{(or marmalade)} 22:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Cripes, I gotta get my skills up so I can post more pics come summer. Nothing 'til then, mind, but after that I should be able to do a bit more. Our class got chewed out again for not putting in enough hours, so it's to my best interest to really start working my tail off from now to the end of April. --Kels (talk) 22:03, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though I disagreed about the need for a more normal wiki structure, you got my vote for the same reason as LX: 'has been known to add content' and 'probably not crazy'. Broccoli (talk) 22:05, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

All depends on your definition of both terms, I suppose... --Kels (talk) 22:06, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

(EC) You got my vote for the same reason I got my own vote: unlikely to be a party to any conflict that needs the Loya Jirga's attention. ListenerX^TalkerX 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

But the cabal does not preside over content! ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

that's because, of course, there is no content. Totnesmartin (talk) 22:23, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There is only xul. ^{— Sincerely, Neveruse / Talk / Block} 22:25, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

moremoremore!

Too many good choices - I want to vote for everyone! Can't we have 9 instead of 7? There are some more people I want to vote for. Also, would like to see Psygremlin and Javascap on the list. Refugee^{talk page} 01:45, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I also want to vote for Ace for Lord High Ruler Supreme of Everyone. :p Refugee^{talk page} 01:46, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

The point is that this be a small group. Javascap voted goat, presumably indicated a mild lack of interest. I would say nominate any 'crat you want, but voting has already started (the process of creating the Loya Jirga has been deliberatly rushed and hasty make sure it gets created). On a related point, what about taking off some of the candidates with few votes and allowing votes for them to be re-cast for others. Isn't this called single transferable or something? Broccoli (talk) 01:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Users should be able to withdraw & recast their own votes if they wish, but not discount other people's votes arbitrarily. ₩€₳$€£ΘĪÐ^{Methinks it is a Weasel} 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

At Refugee, this New Kabal will be a rotating job, so you can vote for more people next time. At Broccoli, no, that step comes after the polls close - if there aren't 7 clear losers winners, lowest vote-getter is removed, their supporters get to re-allocate their votes, repeat until we have 7. ħuman 02:09, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Since when will this rotate? I think once they are elected, their first task after sorting any HCMs should be to work out the rest of their role and the rules, etc. Broccoli (talk) 02:11, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I htink yeah, the first business will be sorta defining what they (the Loya) do. We have done this quickly so it doesn't get lost over pages and pages or trolled mercilessly. I think once the HCM's settle down and leave it'll be more a moderator role. Aceⁱ⁹ 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, once they settle in they'll have to determine how their terms of office will work. ħuman 02:14, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, can we call them The Graphite Rods? The Neutron Stars? ħuman 02:15, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

They shouldn't get to decide their own terms of office after being elected. Why not just make it six months? Anyone take issue with that number?--^(talk) 02:17, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

My original idea for Miniluv was as a bit of snark at TOP a group that wouldn't even start talking until HCM 4 and would kick into gear in time to prevent HCM 2. Broccoli (talk) 02:18, 2 February 2010 (UTC)