|
Post by EgoWaffle on Jan 10, 2004 13:04:32 GMT -5
I think there should only be one term. I would run. But how often do mods get elected?
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 10, 2004 18:11:28 GMT -5
Every 2 months, but that's elastic. There have been problems with there not being enough choices in the past, but I don't know. This idea might be worth a shot. Yeah...in the HEAD Just kidding...maybe I'm just being selfish. What if the vote's a tie?
|
|
|
Post by Haku on Jan 10, 2004 18:38:15 GMT -5
I like the idea that you can't run for more than two times in a row. That seems fair to me, since two terms is four months anyway, and that is a long time.
|
|
|
Post by Antid on Jan 10, 2004 20:12:48 GMT -5
I don't like this idea. Just think back to FDR - he got elected four times, and he was a damn good president. I think passing the regulation would kinda make the votes pointless, because it would narrow down the monthly electorate, and the vote would become kinda pointless. Isn't it only natural that if a mod is doing a good job he should be re-elected? Isn't that why Alexei gets the most votes? He has a mod-monopoly because we like the way he does his job. Keep the good guys in power!
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 11, 2004 0:51:25 GMT -5
aw man, my eye sight is going, i totally read that wrong.... I MEANT to vote yes....
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 11, 2004 0:52:43 GMT -5
He has a mod-monopoly because we like the way he does his job. Keep the good guys in power! If by "we" you mean the people who voted for him, sure. Course I didn't actually vote at all this time...
|
|
|
Post by Monolith on Jan 11, 2004 1:34:36 GMT -5
I won't actually vote but yes if it isn't just one term. Two terms would be good but I think even three is better. I'm worried about the following scenario:
Like Archagon said, about six people run every time. One of those is almost always Henry. with three of the six being the previous MODs, this would mean that the other three would automatically get elected, and with Henry as a MOD, the whole forum goes to hell.
Nothing personal Henry but your 'misbehavior' has already been demonstrated.
|
|
|
Post by Dark Angel on Jan 11, 2004 1:42:51 GMT -5
How about we just not use Henry to illustrate our points? You want "bad mod", you use "bad mod".
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 11, 2004 17:57:33 GMT -5
i think that theres enough people to not worry about it... -_- more will probably run if they have better chances of winning. At the very least you just have to make sure that your best mods aren't all elected at the same time
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 11, 2004 18:24:45 GMT -5
Wait, so is it 4-5 now or 5-4 due to the misplaced vote?
|
|
|
Post by Dark Angel on Jan 11, 2004 18:36:53 GMT -5
At the very least you just have to make sure that your best mods aren't all elected at the same time Uh...okay, the best mods get elected because people want them, to tell people not to vote for one is, um, a bit wrong. I think.
|
|
|
Post by henry on Jan 11, 2004 18:50:57 GMT -5
I won't actually vote but yes if it isn't just one term. Two terms would be good but I think even three is better. I'm worried about the following scenario: Like Archagon said, about six people run every time. One of those is almost always Henry. with three of the six being the previous MODs, this would mean that the other three would automatically get elected, and with Henry as a MOD, the whole forum goes to hell. Nothing personal Henry but your 'misbehavior' has already been demonstrated. Too bad I've only run once. Haha, you failed. ... What if we only elected two mods each time around? Using the example of 6 possible mod candidates, 2 eliminated because they just finished a term, that leaves 4 choices. Then, if each person casts 2 votes, you'd never have to vote for me.
|
|
|
Post by bezzerkker on Jan 11, 2004 23:24:03 GMT -5
that sounds like a good idea to me, that is if we want to cut the mod number down to an even number
|
|
|
Post by geneva on Jan 12, 2004 0:03:29 GMT -5
Uh...okay, the best mods get elected because people want them, to tell people not to vote for one is, um, a bit wrong. I think. I didn't mean it that way, i meant maybe someone wouldn't run one time in order for the spread to be more even or something like for example (this is purely hypothetical, mind you) just supposing I were considered a good mod in the eyes of the people and as much as it pains me to say supposing alexei were a good mod too. Now Alexei is Mod this term and I am not, I did not run. But Now If I ran and got elected next term, and alexei couldn't because we instigated the no double terms in a row rule, even if we cycled the same two sets of mods over and over there is at least one good mod in each set, (assuming the both of us are good mods) see? That's what I meant, not that we wouldn't vote, but that someone might purposefully wait to run for a term.
|
|
|
Post by Archagon on Jan 12, 2004 0:16:55 GMT -5
...as much as it pains me to say supposing alexei were a good mod too. And just what might be the reason for your pain? You have no right to say I'm a bad mod without stating the reasons.
|
|