@Kalissar: When the election is over, the only moderators will be the three with the most votes. If a current mod doesn't get enough votes, then they do not stay as a mod.
One option I think would work well would be to put the decision to increase the number of slots when the election is finished to the existing moderators.
We already consult the existing moderators when determining the number of available slots.
Electing a rogue moderator isn't really a con...
In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Q&A with the candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation. Participation is completely voluntary.
The purpose of this thread was to collect...
Let's look at some funny statistics about our candidates :
The number of upvote, downvotes and percentage of upvotes
Marius : 403 up - 18 down - 95.7% upvotes GentlePurpleRain : 1495 up - 116 down - 92.8% upvotes ABcDexter : 1263 up - 4 down - 99.7% upvotes TheGreatDuck : 75 up - 3 down - 96.1% upvotes Travis Kindred : 56 up - 14 down - 80% uptoves Emrakul : 1659 up - 2045 down - 44.8% upvotes Alconja : 648 up - 96 down - 87% upvotes AeJey : 543 up - 34 down - 94% upvotes Deusovi : 1340 up - 836 down - 61.5% upvotes manshu : 972 up - 117 down - 89.2% upvotes Peanut : 10 up - 5 down - 66.7% upvotes
user61230
3:45 PM
@CodeNewbie This might be a question for @GraceNote?
@Emrakul Looking this up now - I remember it being one way (namely, it doesn't matter how low, the top 10 go on) but I remember it coming up as a discussion at one point due to community concern so I want to look up and be sure whether or not we actually changed anything.
@CodeNewbie Yes. It'll be 10 candidates always, we'll take the top 10 in a pure vote score sort, no exclusions. (had Shog help me look it up)
Wow, I totally misunderstood this phase of the election. I thought votes on the question responses determined who moved on to the election proper, when in fact it is the votes on the election page. It makes so much more sense now... :)
The questions are an entirely optional system that the votes are mostly not even needed, wahaha~
Some sites actually have people discourage voting on the answers so that there's no visible bias on the Q&A, but we don't really have a means to mechanically enforce that sort of thing.
@Sid I know, eh? It seems a little redundant. It would make sense if the Election phase only allowed a single vote, but as far as I understand, it's basically a recap of the Primary phase, but with one less candidate...
@GentlePurpleRain: One less candidate in our case. On bigger sites, it can reduce the list of candidates 3 to 4 times, so it does make sense from an overall SE perspective.
@CodeNewbie I don't think it really makes a difference. If I'm casting a vote for someone in the primary, chances are pretty good I'm going to cast a vote for them in the election as well. If there are 50 candidates, why not just let people vote, and then pick the top 3 most-voted candidates?
@GentlePurpleRain Sure, you are almost certainly going to vote for the same candidate if he makes it past the primary. But if your favourite candidate is ousted at the primary phase, it gives you another chance to take your pick. (Which IMO is good)
@CodeNewbie Which totally makes sense if you only have one vote. But in a situation with 50 candidates here, I could vote for 33 of them in the primary, and then vote again for whatever subset of those make it through to the election (say 7). Those 7 people would be getting exactly the same votes from me in both the primary and the election.
@GraceNote While I have you here, can you comment on the number of moderators? Is there any chance of us having more than 3, especially if some of them say they have limited time available?
The goal of the primary phase is to cull down the candidate pool to a smaller amount - up to 30 people can nominate on a site, but you can only really vote amongst 10. Primary cuts that up-to-30 to 10 by having people just say "I think others should have the chance to support this person" or not. If there are 10 or fewer candidates in the first place, we just skip primaries.
@GentlePurpleRain We can assign additional moderators as necessary if the actual loads of the site aren't being met.
If the election was recent, we can pull runner ups until about half the candidate pool (it varies a lot based on the size of the election and how voting actually went). After that point, or if the election is not recent, we just host a new election for as many new slots as needed.
The election pages' sidebars state that Stack Exchange elections use the Meek STV vote-counting method:
After m days, the final voting results will be freely downloadable from this page forever, and we will calculate the n winners using OpenSTV with the Meek STV method.
How does that work? ...
One option I think would work well would be to put the decision to increase the number of slots when the election is finished to the existing moderators.
We already consult the existing moderators when determining the number of available slots.
Electing a rogue moderator isn't really a con...
In connection with the moderator elections, we will be holding a Q&A with the candidates. This will be an opportunity for members of the community to pose questions to the candidates on the topic of moderation. Participation is completely voluntary.
The purpose of this thread was to collect...
The election pages' sidebars state that Stack Exchange elections use the Meek STV vote-counting method:
After m days, the final voting results will be freely downloadable from this page forever, and we will calculate the n winners using OpenSTV with the Meek STV method.
How does that work? ...
2016 Puzzling Moderator Election
2016 Puzzling Moderator Election