« first day (14 days earlier)    last day (1 day later) » 

Juho
Juho
06:58
@Raphael Wow, quite a number!
 
2 hours later…
Raphael
Raphael
08:30
@Jake No. All we get is this line:
Election closes in 11 hours.
1,069 voters were eligible, XXX visited the site during the election, YYY visited the election page, and 191 voted
To my knowledge, nobody (but SE admins) will ever be able to see who voted for whom. As it should be.
Gilles
Gilles
@Raphael Thomas Pornin found a potential flaw: the order in which the ballots are presented is not uncorrelated to the order of voting. It's randomized, but not using a cryptographically secure RNG.
@Raphael that's mod-only data
the number of eligible voters can be reconstructed, and the number who voted is public via the badge, but the number of visits isn't exposed
Raphael
Raphael
@Gilles Whoops. (I wonder why, it doesn't seem all too sensitive.)
@Gilles Which phase are we talking about now?
Gilles
Gilles
@Raphael when the election concludes, you can download the ballot file
the order of the ballots in this file and the order in which the ballots are cast are not uncorrelated
Raphael
Raphael
@Gilles Ah, okay. But since nobody know the order of voting, there's no information there?
Gilles
Gilles
09:07
@Raphael the order of voting is quasi-public, from the timing of the Convention badge
you don't get the exact order, but close enough
Raphael
Raphael
Oh, I see. This can be problematic, then.
Gilles
Gilles
the ballots are randomized, but it seems that they aren't randomized securely (or better, as Thomas points out, the ballots should be sorted)
meeting time
 
8 hours later…
Thomas Klimpel
Thomas Klimpel
16:51
One point which makes me a bit sad about this election is that the two existing moderators who nominated themselves did such a great job that the first and second vote for many of those who vote will already be fixed. So the other candidates will have to live with the remaining votes, which might significantly undervalue their real quality and past contributions.
D.W.
D.W.
17:22
I know -- isn't it wonderful? I think it's a great thing. We have an embarrassment of riches. What a great problem to have!
vzn
vzn
18:09
@ThomasKlimpel there is plenty of room for moderation not by mods. as the mods have repeatedly pointed out. on an SE site there is not a huge amt of difference between high-rep users and mods powers. and low-rep users have many mod-like powers. a major design goal of SE is to "spread the moderation around".
@D.W. "embarrassment of riches"? kind of. suggest looking at average question votes on front page on a daily basis (as a rough measure of site engagement/ "typical quality") before talking about that. sometimes even feel it has declined.
re TKs pt. an election can tend to energize the electorate as seen. more activity in chat etc. would at least like to see non-winning candidates stay engaged in other ways eg visit chat periodically, to increase group cohesion. notice current mods are sometimes highly active in chat over time, and some current candidates rarely or never visit chat.
 
2 hours later…
Raphael
Raphael
19:57
@ThomasKlimpel As long as we get the "best" three to be moderators, I don't have an issue with that. Also, what D.W. said. And, thanks!
I like that there are enough good candidates for people to not vote for any existing mod.
Juho
Juho
Seems like the elections closed
Gilles
Gilles
OpenSTV version 1.6.1 (http://www.OpenSTV.org/)

Suggested donation for using OpenSTV for an election is $50. Please go to
http://www.OpenSTV.org/donate to donate via PayPal, Google Checkout, or
Amazon Payments.

Certified election reports are also available. Please go to
http://www.openstv.org/certified-reports for more information.

Loading ballots from file cs-1.blt.
Ballot file contains 6 candidates and 195 ballots.
No candidates have withdrawn.
Ballot file contains 195 non-empty ballots.
So congratulations @D.W.
And congratulations to everyone, and let's keep working to build a better site!
Undo
Undo
Thanks for running that
Juho
Juho
I couldn't have imagined a better new mod team. Congratulations all!
Raphael
Raphael
Thanks, and congrats @Gilles and @D.W.!
Weird. Apparently, I was not a moderator for a few seconds, and got awarded the Deputy and Marshal badges. O.o
Which is double weird because probably almost all of these flag were made as a mod, and hence auto-marked as helpful.
@Gilles This here seems to be a nicer rundown. Not that I understand the scheme, but well.
Gilles
Gilles
20:22
@Raphael it's because you delete comments by flagging them
Raphael
Raphael
@Gilles Yup, exactly.
Gilles
Gilles
@Raphael yes but creating those graphs takes work, I just posted the output of the python script
D.W.
D.W.
Congratulations @Gilles, @Raphael, look forward to working with you!
Raphael
Raphael
@D.W. Likewise! :)
@Gilles Still, awarding the flag after you stop being a mod does not make sense. Either these "papertrail" flags count (--> award the badge immediately), or they don't (--> don't auto-award it based on these flags when the user loses mod status). Bug?
Anyway, should we close this down?
Gilles
Gilles
@Raphael yes, it's probably a bug

« first day (14 days earlier)    last day (1 day later) »