0
$\begingroup$

This is in no way a statement against the excellent candidates for this moderator election.

In many elections of this kind, there is a tacit "3rd option", to vote that none of the candidates is suitable for the position and to re-open nominations (RON) - i.e. to start the election again from scratch, with new nominations.

This has the advantage of preventing bad or average candidates from being elected by default, simply by being the "best of a bad bunch".

The only disadvantage I can think of is the risk of having to run a second election.

I was wondering re-opening nominations is not an option in this and/or future elections, and whether people feel that it should be?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Personally, with all the advertisements, I think that a week's time is enough. I also think that anyone who was not active enough to nominate themselves within this time frame may not be suitable choices for being moderator anyways. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Oct 9 '17 at 22:51
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ @SimplyBeautifulArt You are making the assumption that at least one person who was active enough to nominate themselves is a suitable choice. That may be true in this case, but that is exactly the assumption I am trying to challenge. This definitely is not about people wishing they'd had more time to nominate themselves. If the only people to nominate themselves were awful candidates, one of them would still be elected. $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Oct 9 '17 at 22:55
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ I am not making that assumption. Regardless of the situation, I believe the users who can nominate themselves within a week's time are the one's more suitable for moderating than those who can't nominate themselves within a week's time. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Oct 9 '17 at 22:57
  • $\begingroup$ Though I suppose I should not be the one making such an argument, seeing as I am a nominee myself. $\endgroup$ – Simply Beautiful Art Oct 9 '17 at 22:59
  • $\begingroup$ @SimplyBeautifulArt which by extension means you are happy for one of the candidates who did stand to be moderator. There are plenty of good reasons why a viable candidate would not stand. For example, perhaps they assumed that there would be a lot of good candidates, so they wouldn't be needed. Or perhaps they underestimated their ability and needed further coaxing. $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Oct 9 '17 at 23:00
  • 7
    $\begingroup$ This election is just awful in terms of active participation. Three years ago we had 20+ nominations. Of course, a lot of them were by people who were completely oblivious to what is the role of a moderator on this site. But nonetheless, you saw more people taking active roles in this part. More people asked questions. More people were engaged. I worry this might be closer to the 2013 or even the 2012 elections, where activity was nominal, and the winners were just the highest reputation candidates. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 9 '17 at 23:06
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ (My point is that reopening is not going to help. There was a week notice before the nomination, and there was a week of nomination. Indeed, I think that a bit more on the notice would have been helpful, and a forced primaries step is not necessarily a bad thing, but nonetheless, if someone wasn't engaged for two weeks to do this, well, maybe they're not the best candidates for moderator anyway (yes, there are mitigating factors, maybe you were just on the first vacation in a decade, who knows, but that's just life.)) $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 9 '17 at 23:08
  • $\begingroup$ @AsafKaragila I think the biggest mitigating factor would be underestimating your own suitability and assuming better people would stand. Humility is definitely not a bad trait in a moderator. It's less about whether it would help, and more about giving the community the chance to say no to a bad group. Having no moderator is better than having a bad one. Again, this isn't a statement about this election in particular. (And for the record, I wouldn't stand if the nominations were next week either.) $\endgroup$ – Mathmo123 Oct 9 '17 at 23:12
  • $\begingroup$ Initially, I also wondered of RON, however i thought that if there were an election with only rotten apples running, the community as a whole would come together to say something (I think there are plenty of vocal people who would speak up against such a case). Although in a more democratic world, RON may be necessary, I think it has simply always been the case that Ron hasn't needed to run. (I don't know much of previous elections). I know in my local elections Ron has been a wake up call to the humble nominees you referred to, so you might be on to something. $\endgroup$ – mdave16 Oct 10 '17 at 0:09
  • $\begingroup$ I'd personally be happy with a Nevada-style "None of the Above" option for $\ge 1$ of the $3$ votes each user has. $\endgroup$ – user296602 Oct 10 '17 at 1:53
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know if you mean myself directly in that comment. But if you do, there's a lot more to it than "humility" when it comes to not nominating myself. $\endgroup$ – Asaf Karagila Oct 10 '17 at 21:35

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .