@derobert There won't be any huge urgency to vote however. The other thing that will happen is those survey questions will get compiled and we can all take a whack at answering them. Hopefully at least some people weigh those in their vote.
@FaheemMitha, well, I meant the nominees for the election are really efficient. They know their stuff and are pretty well experienced.
But the fact how they will fare as a moderator remains to be seen. I personally believe that being a moderator is not something different from what they are now.
@Ramesh Because SE elections use the Single Tranferable Vote method to run elections, and multiple vote input over multiple candidates allows them to rank the candidates by people's preferences.
@FaheemMitha Evan is a high rep user on SO who has counter culture ideas about how SE should function for which he catches quite a bit of flack on meta and he's notorious for trolling elections.
@terdon I've been sort of conflicted on if I should vote on questions I've answered. Normally, someone would be expected to abstain from voting on issues that they have a personal interest in (conflict of interest and all). So I am somewhat reluctant to vote at all in questions I've answered. I almost completely avoid downvoting on them, and only upvote when its an amazingly good competing answer.
I guess the existence of the badge does tell me I should ignore this conflict of interest, at least for upvotes...
@Braiam No, the "Canonical should just leave us alone" idea.
@Ramesh No specific rules, no. Being a Canonical supported site you have to follow the Coc (it is in the terms of service), but other than that it functions pretty much the same as any other SE site.
@derobert Personally, I don't see a conflict of interest. I will downvote (and usually comment on, explaining why) wrong answers irrespective of whether I've answered the same Q or not.
@Kevin By the way, I hope you didn't take my comment the wrong way. It was not intended as an attack. I was just surprised at the phrasing of your nomination. Both the "my users" and the apparent lack of confidence in the rest of us. It seemed strange that you felt it important enough to actually point out your lack of satisfaction.
You have been hired for your tech knowledge as a Secret Agent's sidekick to ensure that the good guy can get his job done and the world can be saved.
This is your last mission before retiring with a high paycheck and the gratitude of the whole world. But before you have to disarm the Evil Genius...
@FaheemMitha Well, because I answered it. I'm used to organizational policies that say I should abstain from any decisions which I'd personally benefit from, even if it isn't really influencing my vote, because it appears corrupt.
So, I guess I'll stop avoiding voting on answers where I've also answered. Still won't get that badge for quite a while, as I appear not to have 100 competing answers to vote on.
@derobert Exactly. Well, Imaginary Internet Points. Whether they are worthless is in the eye of the beholder. By that token, the Lord of the Rings is pretty worthless.
@derobert I definitely don't refrain from voting for any reason (as long as the reason is based on the post content). Mod or not, competing answer or not.
When there's a wrong answer, the right thing is to downvote it and post a correct answer (if there isn't one already)
@derobert 15 I believe. But whatever your role on the site you have a duty to contribute to the crowd sourced nature of the vote system. It is only useful in the aggregate and the more people that recuse themselves from it the less-efficient the system becomes.
@Gilles Sure, I did that. But what I avoided (and you all have convinced me its not really an issue, so I won't avoid anymore) was when I answer something, then competing answers come in...
@Gilles Exactly. That makes sense. We aren't electing someone to vote on posts, but we'd be silly to elect someone who doesn't look at posts.
English is weird: you run or stand for election. If you get elected, you become a sitting councilor/representative/whatever. And typically to get elected you lie.
@derobert yup. For example I wouldn't elect a moderator who doesn't downvote. That tells me he's probably not going to close/delete what needs to go either.
@derobert One of the reasons [badge:sportsmanship] exists in to encourage continued participation in voting even if you are an active answerer. And upvoting the competition is good if they are useful and correct answers (the SE model does best when there are a couple good answers per Q) but it would be remise not to also DV when appropriate.
If all you did was DV that might be troubling, but if you [eventually] earn sportsmanship the fact that you also DV a few along the way is a sign that you're using the system for its strengths, not a sign of abuse.
If I was Grace note I think I'd merge the Help Vampirism one with "give me the codez". After that it's kind of a wash on what anybody thought was important.
@Gilles I wouldn't worry about it. It's not like its really locking out any good questions (as, of course, someone can always just ask the candidates outside of the formal questions)
> We reserve some editorial control in the selection of the questions and may opt not to select a question that is tangential or irrelevant to moderation or the election.
After all, I managed to not get my :wq accidentally in my post. I'm not claiming that's because I know how to use my editor, it could just be because I hit the character limit.
In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected from an earlier thread have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we o...
In connection with the moderator elections, we are holding a Q&A thread for the candidates. Questions collected from an earlier thread have been compiled into this one, which shall now serve as the space for the candidates to provide their answers. Not every question was compiled - as noted, we o...
@terdon And I hope you didn't take offense from my "dissatisfaction" line. It's nothing personal against you or any of the candidates, I just didn't see enough compelling candidates.
@Kevin Perhaps we could ask you to comment—not on specific candidates—but on what attributes you think are important and would distinguish a compelling candidate from a weak one?
@casey Yeah, most of them are marked non-toxic. Probably completely fine, as long as you keep the marker itself away from the kid. (And, of course, glass is not an easy surface for a marker to stick to. Good luck on that...)
It's great to see a Stack Exchange election featuring so many great candidates. It was pretty easy to pick three that looked strong, all of whom would make great moderators.
@Kevin More curious than offended really. Not personally offended at all but I did find the sentiment surprising. What is it that you feel the current candidates lack and you would provide?
Anthon would probably have been the best candidate for this since he's always fixing things up silently behind the scenes anyway, but he didn't run.
@Gilles of course I was referring to the razors brand name (or it's company?), since it's more widely known. If you say "gillete" anywhere in the world is more likely that you will end up with a razor, than you would with tissues if you say "kleenex"
and now I remember that I have to shut firefox off...
@Caleb There's not any one thing that would make a candidate, though some things could set them back quite a bit. Sort of like college admissions in that regard. I've read all the nominations and glanced through the first couple pages of their activity, but my mind was mostly made up based on what I've seen from each of the candidates over the years on this site.
It certainly helps for a candidate to convince me they know exactly what a mod's job is (which is not really something you can get from reading all about the job), and that they're asking for the job for the right reasons.
And, I might add, since becoming a mod almost always causes a reduction in a user's Q&A contributions to the site, electing users with high rep / activity isn't always in the site's best interests, as long as there are similarly qualified candidates who will be visiting the site often enough.