Also who says you are already out of it. For the primary you are just about 20 votes short. This is not that much.

@quid I mentioned to @GraceNote that the answers should have come before the primary voting since those who are out of it may be looked over. This is now coming to terms if people are taking @Behaviour post as how to do it by skipping those deemed to be too far gone.

Yes I agree with that too @dustin the timing. I complained about it in the MO election where it was even worse, as there was no primary.

@quid if I lose I lose, but I at least want a chance based on presenting my views and if no one reads it, I don't get that chance. That is what frustrates me.

Perhaps. Still I think you need to be less sensitive if you want to become a moderator.

Both for the process and then even more.

@quid it isn't sensitivity. I just don't appreciate certain approaches of addressing people. That is why I made the point I did in the first question.

Either way it does not make the best impression for a candidate to complain too much in my opinion. But also I do not want to berate you.

Mainly I just wanted to say that I found your answers good. Even if I do not agree with everything.

@quid I am not complaining. I just disagreed with only one post worthy of being read. Thanks.

Actually that primary is quite interesting regarding the last few slots.

@Shog9 In SF election every nomination had a bold link to candidate's answers to questionnaire on top. Was it something they decided themselves, or did someone from SE edit them in? (The links look uniform, and some are TODO stubs.) Anyway, I proposed that this practice be adopted here.

@quid Yes, three candidates nearly tied for the last two slots, and it was that way for a while.

Yes, and dustin is not too far away either (at -7 and 20 votes behind). It's a bit surprising the other candidates for the contested slots did not write anything.

But then... si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses

did not yet write is what I should have said.

It is also amusing that the young candidates as far as I can see are all packed together; the three mentioned by Behaviour

@Behaviour do you happen to know if it is a known issue that the -100 is written as 100 on the election page?

@quid Yes, it's known

Thanks!

It is by design?!

Yes, that's what they said. Ilmari Karonen responded to that in a comment, but I don't know if put a fix in his SOUP.

@Shog9 Are the candidates able to edit this link themselves to point it to their answer? (If so, I'll go badger them instead of you)

@Behaviour: I was able to edit the link on my nomination

@Behaviour sure

I adjusted the length restrictions to allow for it. If I see anyone editing them out, that's getting rolled back though.

Thanks! Hopefully, @dustin @DanielFischer @IlmariKaronen @PedroTamaroff @Arkamis (and other candidates, after they are done with writing) will make the link more convenient for voters to follow.

@Behaviour I put a link to my post at the top of my nomination vote page a day or two ago. I was on top of that once I wrote it.

@dustin Cool. Sorry if I sounded dismissive (implicitly) about your answers to the Questionnaire. My remark about Ilmari's post begin with if you have time to read just one...

@Behaviour Because I misspelled "math"? I fixed that, sorry. Those candidates all have working links directly to their answers.

(I take that back; I fail at SE post linking 101)

The electorate this year is rather embarassing - only half are wearing hats.

@MikeMiller Please Mike.

"Electorate" = people who [can] vote, not the candidates.

Well, what I said is still undoubtedly true. I appreciate the correction in language, though.

Answers by Jack D'Aurizio

@JackD'Aurizio You may want to change the link at the top of your nomination so that it points directly to your answers, instead of the beginning of that long thread.

New answers: mick and Shaun

@mick could you please update the link on top of your nomination to point to your answers.

Finished mine.

@Behaviour: thanks.

Przemyslaw withdrew at some point.

The candidates' answers are slowly being reordered by reputation. I wonder how many people are actually reading them compared to how many are voting on them.

Candidates should add TL;DR at the top of their answers: "My reputation is ..."

... not really what you should make the basis of your voting decision.

There are only a few I entirely agree with the placement of; Daniel's, Ilmari's, and mick's might be it.

@MikeMiller Jyrki should be first.

His doesn't exist yet.

Ah, yes, I thought you meant the primaries placing.

Oh; I believe those are completely random.

The placement of candidates' answers is never going to be representative of their chances in the actual election. It's determined by a very different, and much smaller, set of voters.

@MikeMiller I meant placing with respect to the vote score. Which is very strongly correlated with rep.

Frankly, I hardly see a point of voting on those at all, since there are 8 positions on different topics taken in one post.

I did downvote mick's, though. (My only vote there)

@Behaviour I'm voting based on whether I think the candidate made a good faith effort in their answers. Most got upvotes.

Daniel, that high reputation is impressing the guys, gals, and others! ;)

@Behaviour Better yet: "Among all the candidates, I have the ___ most reputation."

I think moderator candidates should be familiar with the on-topic page in Help Center... (I hope @AhaanS.Rungta retracts the vote)

@Behaviour Already retracted. I have read the Help Center in the past. It's the fine like about the History of Math that got me over there. No major deal. ;)

Okay. I felt I had to emphasize this point, because mod close votes take effect at once.

@Behaviour Of course, thank you for doing so.

Top 11 as of now: Daniel Fischer 763, Jyrki Lahtonen 573, Pedro Tamaroff 457, Jack D'Aurizio 317, Ilmari Karonen 315, Thomas 287, Arkamis 241, Shaun 109, Anastasiya-Romanova 秀 24, Ahaan S. Rungta 21, Sanath 14

Tight battle for #4 between Jack and Ilmari. Sanath is in danger of staying in 11th.

Thanks for the update :-)

@Behaviour Who's the contester for 11?

@MikeMiller Number 11 is uncontested, the others are in the negative territory. I meant that staying in 11th is a bad thing in itself.

Ah, I see.

@MikeMiller so everything in it is perfect ;D

@Behaviour actually dustin (12th) is positive since some time (+2 atm)

@Behaviour Thanks for the reminder. :) I never got around to fixing the missing minus signs in expanded vote counts before, but it's in the devel branch of SOUP now.

@quid here

@Behaviour Ah, that one. The problem with that is that it's just the tip of the iceberg -- the link colors on math.SE are messed up in dozens of different and interesting ways. I started looking into it once before, and got hopelessly lost in a maze of twisty little CSS rules, all alike. :(

I suppose I could give it another go...

You could just overrule them without untwisting, I suppose. I just use .result-link a:visited { color: #507070 !important; }. Don't remember where I got the color from, possibly made it up myself. Otherwise the search is far less usable.

Do you think I am in urgent need of improvement @skullpatrol ?

No @quid

It is educational.

Now you try to weasel out, but I understood the implication ;-)

:D

In fact I am watching it right now; also saw it on MESE chat.

Seems interesting.

@IlmariKaronen I recall that Jin is refactoring all of the sites' CSS, so perhaps it's not worth the effort to make it perfect. A temp patch could be worthwhile still.

This is a recent illustration of PSQ / dupe situation. I understand the desire to close; but it does not take much more work to close as a duplicate.

All I had to do was copy-paste a part of question into search box, click my "Google SE" bookmarklet, and there was a canonical reference post on the subject. Dupe-closing, as Daniel Fischer noted above, is far less controversial than off-topic.

I'd like to see more of the effort to identify dupes, both on the part of question askers and the voters. And this is a scenario where moderators should feel free to exercise their vote to close.

Ooh, he's calling you out @quid

^ Joel Spolsky on the design of SO

@MikeMiller me?! But I am such a valuable contributor. Behaviour just mentioned it in chat a couple hours ago. ;D

"Calling you out" is so clique.

More seriously, I am pretty new to this site. Of course in some abstract sense I could know that presumably this was asked before but it is not that ingrained either. Also I do search sometimes for dupes; did so quiet recently but had no success in that case.

I had a guy in the English room cry like a baby when he said I was calling him out.

Mick has updated his Q&A with the following statement:

"** Notice : I answered the questions quickly due to lack of time. Im considering giving more complete answers , thus an edit. **"

@MikeMiller not sure that that 0/0 was actually a dupe but okay I vote along due to the peer pressure. ;D

It seems to me that his question was answered by the other one. I'm willing to be scolded if others disagree.

Hmm... I think I agree with you now

I'm retracting my vote