I second Hurkyl's question. I've been busy with research the last 6 months or so and have thus been much more inactive when it comes to MSE, and I'm afraid to say I've merely skimmed across controversial topics such as C.R.U.D.E. (handling meta isn't my cup of tea, which is why I will never run for moderator). While I respect Zach's decision to leave, I'm a bit surprised by it, and it makes me wonder if there are underlying schisms in the community I have missed out on.

As such, in the interest of being well informed during the voting process, might I ask what sort of issues as of late could have caused such a decisive move as leaving the site while leading in the moderation election?

To be clear here: I do not mean to imply anything ill about either Zach or the community, and do not intend to deeply prod into Zach's reasons for leaving - they are his, and I respect that. I merely wish to know if any of his reasons might have been issues applicable to the site at large, which I ought to know about (e.g. the advantages and disadvantages of C.R.U.D.E.)

@Hurkyl not to my knowledge. I think it was getting fed up with the election related process, and maybe it was an overreaction in the moment. Though presumably a lot of frustration built up beforehand which is rather clear from some meta post. However, the "final straw that broke the back" seemed minor to me. (But maybe I missed something.) Anyway I know about as much as everyone.

@BrevanEllefsen there are users that think that think that there should be meaningful control over the content of the site, and there are others that don't or find all kind of issues in how it is done (some arguably justified, but some arguably misguided or even presented in bad faith).

Certain members of the anti-control fraction can be very hostile, some bluntly some more subtly. (Members of the other side might also not at all times be irreproachable, but usually it does not attain that level of hostility.)

What's more, and that is maybe even more draining, is that users mostly on the side-lines, can be unfair in their voiced evaluation of such tasks. In the twenty cases they agree they say nothing, but in the one they disagree they make a fuss. (It's not that they should not voice the dissent, they should, but the way it is done can be frustrating in that it is often very uncharitable.)

@quid that makes sense. Thank you.

@quid That's what I meant by disenfranchisement.

@quid I'm not sure if you can do anything, but there's someone going around on the election nomination page posting (a rather messy looking) integral problem below everyone's thing, asking them to solve it... it'd be nice if you could remove those messages?

(not below everyone's thing, but below multiple)

@SimplyBeautifulArt removed. (Apparently I can delete comments there; I am almost astonished by this, given that otherwise my powers are limited on the election site).

At first I only saw it on Asaf's post, where it playfully fitted into the conversation, but to post it everywhere is too much.

@SimplyBeautifulArt Seems like they only posted that only under our nominations.

...which is still inappropriate.

@AsafKaragila :P

@quid and it astounds me that none of their questions have any close votes...

I wish someone would ask me a set theoretic question, why computing integrals define the cut for "mathematical question"...

@AsafKaragila what is the intuition behind an amorphous set?

How can one visualize it?

@quid In our universe, you cannot have an infinite object, with the exception perhaps of "everything except these finitely many things".

@quid Mushrooms, obviously. :P

@AsafKaragila mmm mushrooms. Let's hope the mice won't eat them.

@quid Well. How do you think mice become iterable?

@AsafKaragila iterable mixe sound dangerous, good that there are daggers around.

@quid After daggers there are also pistols... :P

@AsafKaragila swords too, afaik.

lol

Does anyone understand Von Neumann's reply to @Jyrki on the election page (under their nomination)?

Oh, I recognize the integral user.

He is implying that Jyrki is putting words in his mouth.

Speaking of not understanding, I don't get the reasoning (in a literal sense) of the user who was talking to you just a while ago under my answer to the questionnaire.

Calling Jyrki a superficial person, and using the sarcasm he or she uses, fails at two levels. The deepest level is they are trying to attack a person, and not actions.

Specifically, "@AsafKaragila Because high reputation is made by many users". Did you understand what he meant? I was thinking of replying, but I am having difficulty parsing what he is trying to say.

@MikeMiller yes, it took a while but finally it registered. It was (is? ) a chat regular IIRC.

Was I think. They spent a lot of time having confrontations about integral questions. I usually didn't get involved.

@AloizioMacedo My understanding: They think that the high reputation is a form of democratic voting just in the way the site election is, and these people have already been offered lots of support by a variety of people (perhaps larger than the number of voters in the election).

Oh, now I get it. Thanks.

I don't think there's anything to be done about it; if they think the only suitable candidates need 100k then I am not going to have anything to say to change their mind.

@AloizioMacedo Since a lot of people have to vote on your posts for you to get to a high reputation, it means that you must be a good moderator since everybody likes you?

Yes, I also think that there is nothing to be done about it, and Asaf's comments are essentially what I could say.

And, well, it makes sense that if a person's interaction with MSE is just via questions and answers in the main site, then reputation may be the metric that most makes sense to them.

I guess Mike's explanation is near the mark. I wasn't on best behavior there, but apparently that candidate is easily provoked - on top of other things :-/

Aloizio's, I think, not mine.

I guess he's still a candidate...?

@Shog9 and @GraceNote: One of the candidates is fairly unresponsive, have not participated in the Q&A, and at some point claimed to have withdrawn their candidacy (but haven't actually done so). Seeing how most people vote for one or two candidates, having bad candidates seems like a detraction to the whole process. At what point do you guys intervene? (I'm not saying that you should or shouldn't, I'm just asking.)

For me, I get desktop view when visiting the election page, and clicking the mobile button doesn't do anything @AloizioMacedo

Sorry, I was not clear enough. I also get desktop view when trying to access the election page from a link, for example. But I get the error when trying to access it from a reply on the inbox.

Hm, I have not had any troubles accessing it on mobile through the inbox.

@GraceNote So I am guessing self nominations end at (or about) 20:00 UTC on Monday, a little less than two days from now? And unless we get a bunch of people tossing their hats in before then, we will proceed to the election, about, or shortly thereafter, 20:00 UTC on Monday?

tick-tock, tick-tock, ... !!

@GraceNote No need to respond unless you need to correct me!

@GraceNote and/or @Shog9 On the primary election page, where candidates announce their candidacy, there is a link in your post, itself. You write (with a link to some candidates' answers to the questions): The candidates answer your questions. This relates to Asaf's question to you. In fact, What I, and you, wrote in bold is a false promise, at least thus far. At best it should read Some/Most (or ALL but one) of the candidates answer your questions.

I do get that a candidate not choosing to answer questions is pretty much sealing their own defeat. But while you say answering the questions is optional, you do in fact write The candidates answer your questions; as I said, that is likely false, perhaps even misleading.

Hm, while it is the case that candidates often choose not to answer the questions, it'd be interesting to see someone answer only some of the questions, letting the lack of answers to others speak for themselves.

(Take for example a question concerning a specific topic a candidate does not feel familiar enough with to answer..., though I suppose you'd simply say that as your answer...)