Election rules changes - post 3

[The TJT]

Frankie didn't vote for himself.

Editors vote in the editor vote of confidence?

Just on themselves or each other as well?

That would make the results even more bewildering.

Agreed.

Surely they shouldn't be able to vote for themselves. Doesn't matter if there are 5000 voters, but with our voting "activity" ...

[Dax]

Bit too strict proposals imo.
How about:

-Must exist at Marp atleast 6 months

-Have submitted 10 recordings
OR
-Have submitted 5 recordings and 5 forum posts


Activity:

Last year...
Have submitted 3 recordings
OR
Have submitted 1 recording and 10 forum posts

Don't worry. I wasn't suggesting you have a minimum of 5 years at marp. These requirements seem sound enough to me. Might bump time at marp to a year if elections are held annually. Would give first time electors a chance to see an election before taking part in one. But a good proposal.

[The TJT]

I don't, I have 5 years...and this makes one post more

[Buttermaker]

Referring to time spent at at marp, not age of elector.

Of course. It's really the same though in this case. Somebody who's been longer at MARP doesn't necessarily make a better choice in the elections.

They need to witness whos working the hardest over the long haul, not just for one 30 day block of time.

30 days was just an example of what could be. It's not applicable every time of course.

Thats nonsense.

No, it isn't. After I had been at MARP for a month I knew that BeeJay (an editor at that time) didn't do anything. He wasn't even around. Nobody knew what was up with him. In the elections that year I voted against Beejay of course. I could've made that decision after one month.

Time spent here learning whos who, How things are done, Acceptable practices, Whos making good decisions, Charisma and knowledge of editors, and whos consistantly active, WILL make a smarter wiser voter in the long run.

Oh yeah? BeeJay stayed as an editor. Smart voting by the "wise old elders", eh?