ArbCom nominations begin, Two weeks left to draft Wesley Options

[One]

After months of speculation on MBisanz' page, official candidacies are being accepted, and will be for the next two weeks. Standing candidates (scroll up for table of contents). Privatemusings is the first to cross form "likely" to actual candidacy.

Hopefully there will be some good dark horses.

Jdforrester has an interesting statement that concludes, "I do not expect to be given the community's support; nevertheless, I ask it, and welcome any and all questions."

This post has been edited by One: Mon 10th November 2008, 5:40am

[everyking]

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

[Cla68]

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

This post has been edited by Cla68: Tue 11th November 2008, 12:40pm

[One]

Could SirFozzie, Neil, and anyone else running please answer the question I presented above?

That's a tough question to ask the candidates. Even though I don't agree with the way Jimbo is running this ArbCom election, I don't think I would hold it against one of the candidates if they accepted an appointment after a higher vote-getter was disqualified by Jimbo. All the candidates want to make a difference by getting onto the ArbCom. If someone ahead of them is disqualified, even if its done unfairly by Jimbo or anyone else, that doesn't necessarily mean that the next candidate in line did anything wrong or cheated in any way.

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

At any rate, in the past he hasn't moved down to the next-highest, he's moved down to the highest former arbitrators with more than 50%. Consider that when voting for former arbitrators.


James F. did answer rootology's rather pointed question about this incident:

The Arbitrator in question was, of course, me. I'm not sure what further comment I can usefully give; I absolutely regret the concern raised through my being as honest as I was, and would chose to express my concerns differently if I were faced with the same situation again, but I cannot withdraw my edits in any meaningful way, so they remain.

Regret the concern...raised through being honest...would express concerns differently next time. Hmm.

Well, I do respect James for being straightforward in the past, and I also appreciate that he would not want an arbitrator unsupported by the community. He's at least got that right, although I still don't understand his apparent feelings toward Cla68.

This post has been edited by One: Wed 12th November 2008, 5:19am

[Peter Damian]

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

If no one feels strongly about the issue, however, it would be grossly damaging to protest Jimbo's discretion.

So, like all political choices, it is up to the candidate to gauge the popular mood on this issue. It is also up to the populace to ensure the candidates are aware of the strength of feeling over it.

[One]

Also, by answering this question with a hard "no," it basically guarantees that Jimbo will not ask you to fill the last spot. The point of refusing is to protest Jimbo's discretion. If Jimbo knows you're just going to protest, he'll just look elsewhere to fill the last spot. In fact, I think everyking's question has just destroyed everyone's chance to protest in this way.

Take this game to its logical conclusion. If everyone felt strongly about this issue (I do) they would vote for any candidate who protested Jimbo's discretion, and not for any candidate who did not. That would place Jimbo in the absurd position of having to pass over popular candidates in favour of also-rans, which the community would not tolerate.

That's a good point. Voters could make this a requisite single issue. I'm a little surprised by SirFozzie's answer myself, which amounts to "I don't oppose Jimbo's unilateral acts when I agree with Jimbo." The whole point of the question makes candidates evaluate whether they actually oppose Jimbo's hand in selection, or if they think he's right about being a necessary check against bad candidates.


In other news, Charles Matthews now also seeks re-election. He cites his backslapping work in the BADSITES ArbCom, but doesn't provide a link. Here it is. It does indeed look like the work of compromise...

This post has been edited by One: Tue 11th November 2008, 7:04pm