@fredsbend I generally think of voting as something private and that it's generally better that way so as to avoid unduly influencing others' opinions.
@El'endiaStarman Sharing my vote is my own decision. I haven't asked anybody to share their own. Your opinion on whether I should or should not is irrelevant. I've decided to do it, and in an appropriate spot. Then you edited my messages so the snapshots weren't oneboxed. I don't think you should have done that.
@El'endiaStarman So? What are you protecting them from? This is a flagrant censure. It's a chat room about the elections. Saying who you are voting for is part of that environment, if you choose to do that. Editing people's messages regarding that is wrong.
My sense of the situation when I edited those messages was that having them immediately obvious when you switched to the room was too close to the line of deliberately trying to influence other people to vote the same way that you did. Perhaps I was wrong. Nonetheless, vote totals are shown during the nomination phase, but not the election phase, and there must be a good reason for this.
Additionally, as a mod, I felt that I had the responsibility to do what I thought was best for the community, so I edited your messages. I could have deleted them, but I didn't since I felt that was 1) unnecessary and 2) too harsh, and indeed, too much censure. Feel free to make your case to another mod; I won't argue and they can do whatever they like.
@El'endiaStarman Personally, I don't see a problem with people saying who they're voting for. That's normal election behavior. People campaign for the candidates they support. Unless there's some specific SE rule against it, I don't think it should be suppressed in any way. @fredsbend
@El'endiaStarman Why would I post it if I wasn't hoping to influence others' decisions? Unless you find a fundamental problem with someone telling another "I think we should vote X" I don't think you can make a case. I'm not going to bother making a case to anyone else. But I do think it was important I note that a line was crossed.
@LeeWoofenden That's what I'm saying. If you don't want to see election related items, you probably shouldn't visit the election chat room. And it's very reasonable to expect to see messages like "We should vote for X."
I'm going to have to say I agree a line got crossed there. Being vocal about who you support is one thing (something I've done a lot in this election), but something about posting graphics saying "vote is this order" feels pretty off.
I'm having a hard time describing why and I don't have a problem leaving links to something offsite if people want to follow them, but I had an idea the election process runs smoother without that kind of thing.
Particularly because the vote is an STV system, its best if people don't try for strategic patterns and just vote for who they think is best in order. And much like the SE post vote system the results are better in anonymous aggregate than they are trumpeted around.
The crowd source effect works better when you can poll them for their +/- on something without external influence. Pushing people to be informed (highlighting the questionnaire, etc.) is important, but at the end of the day there is a reason comments on nominations are hidden on the election tab and why the final elections don't show numbers like the primaries would.
Even your comments on the questionnaire pushing people to look at one question over others felt off. We voted on that list and they were all important for different reasons. I commented on strong vs. weak answer to some points too, but I was uncomfortable with how much you seemed to have a specific agenda. I don't know maybe I was coming off the same way, but that's how I felt.
I guess maybe it's about venue too. If this chat room is equivalent to an open floor discussion where you can ask candidates questions and chat with voters from multiple parties about the office in question, I wouldn't want to be greeted to that kind of venue in real life with somebody picketing at the door with a sign showing me which boxes to check on the ballot.
3
Maybe it was the fact that you posted your entire comment in bold that bothered me as much as what it said.
How is it that some of you old-timers are just now getting the constituent badge? Was it not previously awarded to candidates? Or were candidates not allowed to vote?
@Caleb I continue to think that absent any specific SE rule against it, campaigning, even campaigning vigorously, for or against particular candidates is fair play, and even good, and should not be curtailed. Most real-life elections are done by secret ballot. And yet they involve much vigorous campaigning by many people, not to mention by the candidates themselves, for and against various candidates. Why is this wrong in an SE election? @fredsbend
@Nathaniel I wasn't aware that the review queues were a contest. 8^D
@LeeWoofenden I agree with Lee on this, @El'endiaStarman. Freds reaction is undestanadble. A variety of people have made comments under the candidates' blurbs on the Meta, and that kind of commentary is also a form of "influencing" the election if only indirectly by show of support or disagreement.
@KorvinStarmast Note that neither Caleb nor I took issue with what fredsbend said (in graphical form) but how it was presented.
@LeeWoofenden I think using real-world elections and saying "they do it, why can't we?" is a poor argument since SE breaks with a lot of common patterns in general, both in the real world and online.
@El'endiaStarman Yes, I understand, and I also agree with Lee's follow up, but I do understand the objection that it doesn't feel right. We aren't a borg, so we all bring slightly different judgment to the table. I am glad this conversation was active, as I had not voted yet. I now have. I am not sharing who I voted for as that's not my particular style. (And because the decision was hard ... very hard. Good choices, unlike back in November when it was only bad choices ...)
@El'endiaStarman Absent any good reason not to electioneer, I simply don't see what's wrong with it. And get with the 21st century. It's all about graphics!
I believe that in this case the mods have used a heavy mod-hammer to enforce personal views that have no basis in any SE rules or standards.
So far neither of you has shown any SE rule that prohibits what @fredsbend did. Do you get to just make up rules when you're a mod?
@LeeWoofenden This from someone I thought was against blind adherence to rules. While I have not found an exact quote on Meta.SE regarding this situation, what I do have is experience. That experience combined with my understanding of SE's expectations of moderators, specifically the part where we're expected to support the community, lead me to take the action that I did. Do note that I only edited, not deleted. That would've been a heavy mod-hammer.
We are in the election phase, past the nomination phase. Campaigning for (and from) candidates during the nomination/primary phase is fine, telling other people who you voted for during the actual election (especially with an image that takes up a fair amount of screen space) is not, I believe.
@fredsbend I'm not sure how relevant the "location" here is. SE's mechanics regarding voting during the election phase are clearly intended to reduce the possibility (even likelihood) of bias induced by seeing what other people voted. You can easily find additional content on M.SE regarding whether vote totals during the primary should be visible.
I don't care if you post your choices later, towards the end of the election.
@El'endiaStarman That's an aggregate concern. Seeing one candidate at 10+ the next guy will likely influence your vote. Seeing a bunch of outspoken people saying stuff in the chatroom will likely not.
@Nathaniel If that is the mind set used for community mod actions, which don't earn rep but do earn badges, I think it may lead to "quick on the trigger" modding (in the community mod sense) which I am not sure is a good thing. But that depends on a given Q or A, since some things -- like rants or spam or posts of pure crud -- need to get scrubbed sooner not later.
@KorvinStarmast yeah, I don't think the criteria that @caleb has used for pre-determining who he want to succeed David as mod is the criteria I'd use. Playing the game very well might prove your dedication, but it doesn't mean you're a great mod.
@El'endiaStarman The operative words being, "I believe." Being lenient about applying rules is one thing. Making up rules and applying them is another.
@LeeWoofenden Heh, the operative words are indeed "I believe" when it comes to Christianity. 8^D I am a little surprised that we seem to have a tempest in a teapot over this ... do elections just do this to people? Stir things up?
Christianity 2017 Moderator Election …
Christianity 2017 Moderator Election …