@user400188 Your candidate score is 8 (out of 40). You are missing these badges: Cleanup, Deputy, Electorate, Marshal, Sportsmanship, Reviewer, Steward, Convention, Investor, Copy Editor, Refiner, Tag Editor, Strunk & White.
@AlexanderGruber Me too. One of those start up above is mine.
@amWhy He seems like a reasonable compromise candidate. I imagine that there are partisans on either side of the PSQ issue who will put either me or Matt Samuel as their first choice. Neither of us will be a second (or third) choice on those ballets, and I would guess that Paramanand will be a common second choice.
And, to be fair, it might be nice to have someone from that hemisphere on the moderating team.
I do worry about his level of participation in meta until now, however. :\
@amWhy Sure do. Also, ugh, every time I post anywhere on the meta on on a controversial thing, my reputation goes down as people look at my profile and disagree with something. It is horrible, they never leave a comment so I never know what I did wrong. I spend an hour or 2 checking the questions/answers for any mistakes only to find nothing each time, and I am too scared to ask about it on the meta after previous experiences there.
One of most recent downvotes is on a question that, if you didn't read it, could be interpreted as homework (maybe if you skimmed the page and looked at the formulas, but nothing else.) The other I have no idea for, all I ask is the difference between two terms in mathematics.
@user400188 Not really on topic here, but flag it for moderator attention. They may not be able to do anything about it, but if you suspect shenanigans, flag it.
Sorry, I shouldn't have posted that here. Truth be told though there isn't anywhere I could post it and simultaneously have be on topic and safe to post, since posting on the meta is what causes the problem. Following your advice I will flag it (thank you for that), but I think it is most likely not a particular person targeting me.
Let's not predict the outcome of the election and instead wait for the result. @XanderHenderson: point taken abt my participation in meta! Whatever be the outcome of election, I will try to be more active in meta discussions.
Compared to writing answers on main, posting on meta requires a rather different kind of skill and I have a lot to learn on that front.
@ParamanandSingh I hate to disagree, but I think that a discussion of the candidates and their chances of winning is entirely appropriate. That is, after all, what elections and campaigning are all about.
And, as others have pointed out, this channel (which is supposed to be about the candidates) has been dominated by bot-baiting.
That chat bot was really detrimental to the discussion as pointed by @amWhy. Also I am not sure how can one figure out chances of someone's winning when we don't know anything about other people votes (some people have openly declared support for some candidates but I don't know if that can really give some idea)
@ParamanandSingh But we do know something about people's preferences, based on voting in the questions thread.
Both Matt Samuel and I are very divisive candidates---there are factions which like each of us, and factions which do not. My guess is that these factions will tend to put both of us on the top of their respective ballots. However, I doubt that anyone will get a majority in the first round.
Because we are divisive candidates, it is unlikely that either of us will pick up many votes in subsequent rounds.
@ParamanandSingh No, but I don't think that it much matters; the point is that we are both likely to get most of our votes on the first place slot, and not many beyond that (at least, that is my guess). I'm not going to be anyone's second choice (I suspect).
Brahadeesh, I think, lacks experience, which is reflected in the relatively low vote totals on his answers. TheSimpliFire and heropup joined late, so it is hard to know how the voting will go for them. While TheSimpliFire has a longer track record on meta, he was largely absent last year, so he may lack name recognition.
This leaves you as the likely consensus candidate (in my opinion).
TheSimpliFire is a wildcard (as he is well known on Math SE, but has been inactive recently), and heropup is a wildcard (I am not at all familiar with this user, they are not terribly active on meta, but they have a high XP total, which may have an influence on the voting).
In any event, good luck, @ParamanandSingh. I need to go to bed.
I think next election, we should have two rooms, something like 20XX Moderator Election Infomation, and 20XX Election Discussion / Chat with the candidates. The former room can be for the bot fielding basic info queries (some find it useful) and the latter can be for actually having discussions with non-bots.
5
@XanderHenderson Election winners tend to be highly correlated with highest rep candidates, based on historical data. It hasn't been an absolute rule (actually I was one of the exceptions) but there's definitely a trend.
@ParamanandSingh Well, one thing I can guarantee you if you get elected is, you're gonna be subject to a whole lot of meta discussions. We have a lot of internal debate over different decisions.
I'll be glad to see what the winner's perspective adds to the mix. New mods alway change the balance of opinions, even those whose opinions line up perfectly with the standing mod consensus (as even that is a compromise between differing internal perspectives).
@AlexanderGruber: may the best candidate win! And I agree fully with your paragraph about new mods. As for meta discussions let's not make them people centric (stack exchange is about content and not users)! However humans are not bots and ultimately there is a people aspect involved.
@XanderHenderson seems like an overstatement. We can check after the election.
There is a valid point there; yet I think it is less clear cut. User do not all vote in this way, plus even when they do, why wouldn't there be somebody that prefers say TheSimplifire over you yet puts still puts you second, same with heropup.
Even leaving the two that nominated a bit later aside, you could easily be third on some ballots after Brahadeesh and Paramanand (in any order) or one of the two if for some reason the voter does not like one of the two.
But frankly I suspect there will even be ballots with Matt and you as one and two in some order.
@ParamanandSingh I think most ballots tend to be complete. There is really little reason not to cast a second and third vote as explained in my Q&A
Then some might not know that.
Comparing with prior elections could be tricky as there always was more than one slot and this changes the dynamic.
Welcome to the election chat room! The election is currently in the election phase. I can answer frequently-asked questions about the election - type @ElectionBot help for more info.
user185131
@SamuelLiew What causes the ElectionBot to generate this welcome message? I thought a new entrant to this room triggers the message, but I don't think I saw anyone enter just now
By the way, I am interested how the candidates and others in the chatroom think I should have handled a question like this one: https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3746600/show-that-p-⊕-q-wedge-r-p-wedge-r-⊕-q-wedge-r-using-laws-of-boolean/3746892#3746892
I received a downvote on it, probably because there is not much of an attempt in the question. I noticed this when I was answering it, however I also acknowledged that the the asker claimed to have already answered the question using another technique they knew.
@user400188: you can see that it is an easy question based on straightforward use of the laws of boolean algebra. I expect that the asker to start by using definition of $\oplus$ at least and then proceed further. In short a few lines of your answer could be given by the asker.
@user400188: however I think if the asker was requested by comments there would have been some response from that side. This is what we really need to do. For routine problems let's prod the asker a bit (also give some downvotes / close vote if you think you need to add weight to your prodding) and then wait for the response.
@user400188:I think there is reasonable consensus over routine questions being posed as PSQ. The debatable aspect is over questions which are not routine but rather challenging and give high to a lot of answerers. Even then some sort of context is desired. I have myself questions based on Ramanujan's work where I can't show attempt, but I do add a lot of context.
If one is not so sure of giving a close vote to questions lacking context then at least resist the temptation to answer it. In recent past I have myself been guilty of giving in to the temptation.
@quid: just to be frank your Q&A about voting is one of the best things you did for this election. That was needed at least for users who are first time voters.
@user400188 I think perhaps an explanation of the notation is in order, as I didn't recognize it until I looked at your answer, even though I'd seen it before. I don't think the level of the question is relevant. There is an explanation of the issue that I see as sufficient context, given so that the answer is not simply a truth table. If people want more context, the actual truth table could be given in the question, though I don't think that is necessary.
@user400188 I likely would have asked for clarification regarding the meaning of $\oplus$, and voted to close for lack of clarity.
I would also have liked to see the truth table, but it really isn't relevant to the question, because they want a way of attacking the problem more algebraically.
I think that the question is pretty marginal, in any event, but your answer is fine.
Is @AsafKaragila going to do us proud again with almost instantaneous results of this election? :D He's served us very well in past elections, even beats the most savvy of CMs to the punch!
@amWhy I really hope he does! Cus the election ends at 1.30 am for me here, (I'll be dozing off at that time) and the first thing I want to see in the morning would be the election results!
What I appreciate most about this election is that by and far, the tone set by both candidates and for the most part, users in comments below the candidates' answers has been far more civil than in the last election. Credit to the candidates, the mods, and most users, too!
@sai-kartik: There are many users for whom math.se is a significant part of their lives. Out of these some are lucky due to their timezone and there are others like me who need to put extra effort tonight! @amWhy: yes that is a good change and lets hope the trend continues.
The 2020 elections are over. By analyzing the OpaSTV file with the voting data, I'd like to welcome to the moderators team the winner of the 2020 moderator elections is
In the name of all the users on Mathematics SE, congratulations on your victory!
@TheSimpliFire You mess with the best, prepare for defeat.
Congratulations to Xander, and I'd like to say that this was perhaps the best election cycle we had so far in terms of participation, quality of candidates, and overall spirits. Kudos to everyone!
Congratulations to @XanderHenderson. Following your promises, Mr. @XanderHenderson about high quality content users, could you look at the case of a former diamond moderator who has been temporarily suspended for no good reasons: math.stackexchange.com/users/242/gone
@pisoir it is not very clear how you possibly could know it was for no good reason. Anyway, it would be appreciated if you not stir up controversy here.
No controversy intended here. Just testing our brand new moderator and his pre-election answer;) `
10. How would you deal with a user who produced a steady stream of valuable answers, but tends to generate a large number of arguments/flags from comments?
Ultimately, content is king. I am willing to give a lot of leeway to a user who is rude, so long as they produce good content. That being said, I do think that we should strive for civility, and there are cases when the diamond-powers are likely to be needed`
@pisoir My answer to question 6 is relevant. It may also be relevant to note that moderators are not at liberty to discuss moderator actions in public.
@XanderHenderson Thanks. And again, congrats from one of your voters.
@quid @quid, in my opinion it is relevant since the user (@Gone) was producing high quality content (for ca. 10 years). Suspending such user for "Voting irregularities" seems harsh to me, and according to @XanderHenderson answer he could feel probably the same.
The 2020 elections are over. By analyzing the OpaSTV file with the voting data, I'd like to welcome to the moderators team the winner of the 2020 moderator elections is
In the name of all the users on Mathematics SE, congratulations on your victory!
