[mb-automods] Cancelling toss-ups

[Bogdan Butnaru]

That's actually a valid point. I assume the current voting logic (for
elections) have just been set-up initially as the simplest variant,
but I don't remember it being discussed. (Although I'm relatively new
here, were there any discussions when the elections system was
implemented?)

I could see the utility of revamping the system a bit. A
super-majority seems to be seen as desirable by most auto-editors (at
least, only those that do seem to have expressed their opinions), so
we might consider raising the bar to 66% or even 75% (though I _think_
some previous elections closed on lower that that).

Another change that might be useful would be to cancel as "undecided"
elections that don't reach a certain quorum. For example, there
probably should be at least twenty or so non-abstaining votes for a
valid election. (I'm not aware of any case where this didn't happen,
but I don't think it'd hurt to formalize it.)

On Tue, Apr 22, 2008 at 5:36 PM, Brian Schweitzer
<brian.brianschweitzer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Well, currently it only takes a majority to pass an autoeditor nomination;
> if we want it to take a super-majority, we ought to actually decide that,
> ticket it for change, and actually have that as a guideline for elections, I
> think.  Otherwise, without such guidance and with the system as it is now, I
> do still think cancelling due to a close vote places higher importance on
> the votes cast by those who vote no, over the votes cast by those who vote
> yes.

-- Bogdan Butnaru — bogdanb at gmail.com
"I think I am a fallen star, I should wish on myself." – O.