Mod Voting Debate Thread

[Xachariah]

As the debate on voting rages in the thread about Familiar's modship, it strikes me that maybe you guys'd like a thread specifically to debate that. After all, I feel like there's a point to be made - and possibly a change. An important one. One that deserves its own thread, much like uniponies and moeblobs might if they were going to decide something about the way tK works.

So, yeah. Here's your thread. Debate away.

[Familiar]

Perhaps it's best to leave the option to just three votes in the future. Yes/No/Abstain.

And take the percentage from the Yes by itself?

[Inquisitor]

I don't really think it's much of a debate at all - I'd just like to see a statement on how much of a percentage is required to satisfy the staff and get someone promoted. To sate my curiosity.

[Xachariah]

Fam's post: That's how I'd handle it, as it's simple and obeys the rule of three.

However, there seems to be some debate over whether abstaining should be disregarded entirely.

For some reason, I find it tempting to apply trigonometry to the resulting poll - Yes is the hypotenuse, No and Abstain at the two angles.

... this would be gross overcomplication, though, wouldn't it?

Inquisitor: Couldn't hurt to find out, I suppose. But, well, your not-a-debate standpoint isn't what caused the creation of this thread; feel free to pitch in, anyway.

[Xachariah]

But how do you count votes for neither yes or no? That's what got me baffled. Some votes, people don't deal with the moderator so they don't know, so those votes shouldn't count at all.

Some votes, maybe there was something they'd like to have been done differently - and how do you count those? Does every third astaining-by-reason-of-indecision count as one vote against?

I have no objection to more than a simple majority being required; however, the method with which the abstinent votes are dealt with must be considered when deciding what is required.

[Xachariah]

Yes, but how do you deal with the "Haven't decided?"

[Familiar]

The poll is open for two weeks. People don't have to vote right away. They're welcome to read the responses on the thread, or interview the moderator themselves/wait to see if the moderator does anything that influences the vote.

[Kade]

Pies for Draco.

[Xachariah]

Yes, it's plain enough what the specific option means, but the question I'm asking is how you interpret that vote. How do you deal with it, as far as votes go?

Do you count it as a flat against, when there's an option specifically for that?

Do you count it as an incremental against, where so many abstains is one against, or... ?

What do you do with such a vote?

[Pitch]

I gotta say...putting it up to a real vote that actively decides the position seems detrimental, IMO. Lots of people can't put aside personal beef and drama in orderto vote accordingly and fairly, and can easily convince their comrades to shit-vote too.

[Xachariah]

So your solution for what you do with abstaining votes is to simply count them as more No votes, and require more than simple majority while counting those.

This seems... odd. After all, if they meant their vote to be No, they would vote No. At least, this is how I see it.

Therefore, I'll propose this as a possible solution, rather than simply asking "What would you do with those abstinent votes" over and over until it becomes pretty much the same as the question of the sound of one hand clapping.

My proposal:

1: 2/3s majority is required for approval.
2: Votes will continue to be divided into four (Yes, No, No Interaction, and Undecided But Interacted) to provide for those who vote simply because they see a poll.
3: Undecided But Interacted votes will count as one-half a vote each; thus, each two UBI votes will count as one vote.

I'll use your example numbers for this explanation of how this would work:

6 Y/2 N/2 UBI

As it is now, it's effectively 6 vs 2.

Counting the abstinent votes as a whole negative, despite being not plainly negative, causes this to rise to 6 vs 4; As I've said, this does not seem right to me, as they would have voted No if No is what they meant.

Therefore, by my proposal, this would count each UBI vote as one half of a negative vote, which seems perfectly logical to me (as they are, by nature of being undecided, half yes and half no), causing it to be 6 vs 3.

In the small numbers, this isn't a very large difference. Let's look at it with, say, 100 votes and the same proportions.

60 Y/20 N/20 UBI

Plain Negative: 60 vs 40 | Half-Value: 60 vs 30.

It will continue to look about the same as long as I continue to use the same numbers. I did it for an example.

Thoughts?

[Xachariah]

I'm saying that because you voted to abstain, your vote does not count entirely as a no, just as it does not count as a yes. You're neutral, but you want your vote counted; if you do not mean to vote entirely against the moderator, then why should you be forced to have it considered a no? I can see your point - that every vote should count equally, but if they did not vote no, then why should their vote be considered such?

Also, if you wanted the neutrals to count as no, then why not just have two votes? Yes and no?

God, more ticket analogies? If I see another of those, I'm going to do not a damn thing. Voting is not getting a ticket, voting is voting. You go to the real-life polls and you vote to abstain from a vote, your vote does nothing, congratulations.

[Xachariah]

Alright, so I was wrong about what happens with them. However, it still irks me to consider a neutral vote to be automatically negative; by the very nature of it being neutral, it is as much on-board as it is not.

Now, whether this is something you've studied or not, I still disagree for the reason. I have made my stance known, and will continue to disagree with you on that particular point; therefore, I will not debate that particular point any longer.

Unfortunately, this appears to be the entirety of the current debate, aside from the amount of majority required, as nobody else has said much on this. So, looks like I'm done for the night.

[Web Janitor]

Perhaps it's best to leave the option to just three votes in the future. Yes/No/Abstain.

And take the percentage from the Yes by itself?

No. I am interested to know how many people have never heard of you. If 90% of the people were to vote "I have never even interacted with you," then I would be concerned and would want to know why. It is a warning sign that would tell me you aren't very active. I leave open another option for people who don't have an opinion on you but have interacted with you, because that data tells me something else.

Baring a compelling argument to change this system in the future (deliver it to my inbox) I cannot see it changing. I may note some measure of surprise should I receive such a message, because the system has worked fine without a serious request for change in four years.

That said, everyone may continue to debate to their heart's content; when you have reached a conclusion all of you find agreeable, I will be not terribly far away.

- Web

[1337]

"...when you have reached a conclusion all of you find agreeable,..."

- Web

Never going to happen.

























Edit: EVER

[Silent.Kamikaze]

"...when you have reached a conclusion all of you find agreeable,..."

- Web

Never going to happen.




Edit: EVER

Let it be noted that on this day of days, 1337 finally made me snicker.

[Inquisitor]

The whole issue of abstaining seems to come from Draco's belief that an abstaining vote should be counted as a negative which not only seems unfair, but silly. An abstaining vote can be neither positive or negative, because it is the absence of a vote. Abstaining doesn't bring the over all percentage down, stating "I abstain from voting" is the same thing as saying "I will not vote one way or another". It may bring down the over all percentage if you count them all together, but the only numbers that matter is the percentage of Yes vs. the percentage of No.

[Eibon]

There is also this strange idea that mods need to go on some kind of room to room campaign to prove themselves; its not a presidential election where they say pretty words and tell everyone what thet are going to do.  We get to see what they would do by giving them a chance to do it as a trial mod.  Voting to abstain can come from not being sold, which could come from missing them doing their jobs.  Thus, why are you abstaining to vote for any other reason than "I didn't get to see them do their job"?  If you weren't sold that they were an effective mod implies they were not effective mod, ergo, a no vote for promoting them to global.  What is the in between?  If they want to vote no, vote no.

As far as I am concerned, abstaining is practically the same as not voting at all; like Web said, it'd be one thing if there were a significant number of abstained votes, meaning they probably weren't very active, but since that is not the case (nor has it ever been to my knowledge), why should these votes even count? People want their voice heard and their opinion to matter, but they veil their lack of an opinion behind "I'm neutral"... Just adding that neutral vote that could go either way to the no category is unfair by the very definition of neutrality.  If you just have to count the neutral vote, like Xachariah suggested, it needs to be half a vote seeing as we can't just slide that 'neutral vote' in the 'yes' direction...

[Kade]

An approval rating is literally a percentage of people who approve.

In real life, it's usually followed by a percentage of people who voted they do not approve.

Adding the two percentages doesn't make a whole 100%. That's how the people who abstain are represented. Technically, it counts negatively to both sides.



The percentages in this one, for example, add up to only 82%.
It would've been misleading to not count the abstainers and say that over fifty percent of people approve, but this seems to be the way the Moderator Approval poll is handled.

Another example:


There's lots of these.

[MikeFife]

I don't get it. No means No I don't want them as a moderator. Yes means Yes I want them as a moderator, and Abstain means I want to click a button, but have no opinion either way. Their votes don't count. Abstaining is the decision NOT To USE YOUR VOTE. YOU ABSTAIN FROM VOTING. Don't mince words here. A Yes is a yes, a no is a no, and an abstain is no decision. Why do we even have an abstain. Vote yes or no, or don't vote at all and move on.

[Kade]

Because the people who choose not to vote are still part of the population, Mike.

[Inquisitor]

Yet have no effect on the voting. How strange.

[B[ M ]K]

Perhaps an encouragement for those who do select 'Abstain' to explain why. Those who truly want to know a user that is possibly being promoted to a staff member has but to whisper that person and talk with them to find where they might stand, if that is an issue. Unless it is a large percent, I fail to see the problem with there being users who have not interacted with candidate. There will always be some who have not [ yet ] required their services.

[Gigi]

This reminds me of when people vote for President in the real world. The ones that complain about who got elected but didn't vote themselves. They threw their vote away by abstaining, thus what they had to say didn't count in the end. Here people could have so easily clicked on yes or no. If they don't want to vote, they don't. But don't bitch and moan about not liking whoever got "elected" because they (you) already had the choice to vote and they (you) blew it.

On a side note, I've seen a couple of people be promoted to mods during my stay here on TK and I have to wonder about the perfect timing of this because I didn't see anyone question the process until now. Sounds like some people are mad because they can't manipulate the votes, the mod or the masses and are trying to find another angle from which to fight someone from happening. And since they are fighting it so hard it makes me think that someone is doing something right

[Kade]

This reminds me of when people vote for President in the real world. The ones that complain about who got elected but didn't vote themselves. They threw their vote away by abstaining, thus what they had to say didn't count in the end. Here people could have so easily clicked on yes or no. If they don't want to vote, they don't. But don't bitch and moan about not liking whoever got "elected" because they (you) already had the choice to vote and they (you) blew it.

On a side note, I've seen a couple of people be promoted to mods during my stay here on TK and I have to wonder about the perfect timing of this because I didn't see anyone question the process until now. Sounds like some people are mad because they can't manipulate the votes, the mod or the masses and are trying to find another angle from which to fight someone from happening. And since they are fighting it so hard it makes me think that someone is doing something right