Number of Character Appearances VI - Wrecan: "I like counting things"

[Rollin]

As for the subtitle of the new thread, I'd like to suggest:

Remembering Absent Friends

[knag]

I'll put my name in as well to curate the thread.

As far as voting methods, I think caucusing would be a little cumbersome and archaic. I guess my preferences would be:

1. Schulze method condorcet ranked voting
2. Method of electing the Doge of Venice (ten rounds of sortition and election of various sized colleges with the final college electing the curator, just the right amount of cumbersome and archaic.)
3. Score-Then-Automatic-Runoff (STAR) cardinal voting
4. First-past-the-post
5. Caucus

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I’d take the job, but IIRC there is some sort of voting process for this, right?

I'll put my hat in the ring.

I'll put my name in as well to curate the thread.

All duly noted.

As far as voting methods, I think caucusing would be a little cumbersome and archaic. I guess my preferences would be:

1. Schulze method condorcet ranked voting
2. Method of electing the Doge of Venice (ten rounds of sortition and election of various sized colleges with the final college electing the curator, just the right amount of cumbersome and archaic.)
3. Score-Then-Automatic-Runoff (STAR) cardinal voting
4. First-past-the-post
5. Caucus

I'll throw my hat in with the Doge-Method, or at least a rough approximation. Is there anybody able and willing to consult every currently extant thread in each other subforum for their vote for curator (determined, of course, by every poster in the thread being allowed a number of Schulze-style votes equal to the number of posts they've made), determine consensus with first-past-the-post in each subforum, and have each subforum bring a representative to caucus for a particular candidate?

As for the subtitle of the new thread, I'd like to suggest:

Remembering Absent Friends

Ah yes, nearly forgot about subtitles. Anyone else want to put in suggestions?

[Vargtass]

Slight edited suggestion for thread title: To absent friends”

[Jasdoif]

1. Schulze method condorcet ranked voting
2. Method of electing the Doge of Venice (ten rounds of sortition and election of various sized colleges with the final college electing the curator, just the right amount of cumbersome and archaic.)
3. Score-Then-Automatic-Runoff (STAR) cardinal voting
4. First-past-the-post
5. Caucus

I note a distinct lack of approval voting in your list.

[Emanick]

Voting sounds like a good and prudent idea. What do you all think of a week for curator candidates to declare on this thread and a further week for voting (if there's more than one candidate)?

EDIT: The current candidates are Schroeswald, TheWombatOfDoom, and knag. More may come by March 2.

I support this plan. It gives us enough time to consider everything properly, without taking unduly long.

As for the subtitle of the new thread, I'd like to suggest:

Remembering Absent Friends

This is really good. I've been thinking about what to call the new thread and I couldn't come up with any good ideas that sounded natural and sufficiently honored Martianmister (and, if possible, Wrecan - I still feel bad that this thread's absolutely perfect name won't be around for a full 50 pages). Full support for "Remembering Absent Friends."

On another note, I'd like to officially register my interest in curating the next thread. I know I don't post on this thread super often, but I've always followed it closely and been very interested in it. I even ran a parallel "number of appearances" document on my laptop for several years, though I eventually retired it after trying to deal with the overwhelming number of unique vampires/vampire spawn in the early #1100s.

It might or might not also be relevant that I was briefly declared curator a couple years ago after Martianmister had been absent for several months, only for her to return just in time to keep her job. The fact that I was chosen last time around doesn't mean that I'm necessarily the best candidate this time, of course, especially because quite a few people seem to be interested in the job. Schroeswald in particular has been excellent about posting updates to this thread. I would, however, love to be considered for the position again.

EDIT: Regarding voting methods, my usual preference is for ranked-choice voting, but it seems rather awkward to rank individual people in this context. Maybe if the vote is anonymous, it wouldn't be too weird? (Also, y'all are putting my nerdy-by-most-standards knowledge of voting methods to shame. )

[ByzantiumBhuka]

On another note, I'd like to officially register my interest in curating the next thread.

Noted and added.

EDIT: Regarding voting methods, my usual preference is for ranked-choice voting, but it seems rather awkward to rank individual people in this context. Maybe if the vote is anonymous, it wouldn't be too weird? (Also, y'all are putting my nerdy-by-most-standards knowledge of voting methods to shame. )

An anonymous vote would work well. My PMs will be open if that's what we decide on. (I likely won't vote in this; I'm not active enough to know much about the skills of any of you all.)
On the subject of voting methods: in larger groups, approval voting might get my approval, but in a community like this, where almost everybody probably approves of almost everybody, that might not work. Ranked choice is probably at the top of my list if we use anonymity.

We really need to have a vote on voting methods. Which voting method should we use for that vote?

[Schroeswald]

We really need to have a vote on voting methods. Which voting method should we use for that vote?

Hey, this isn't the Index of the Giants Comments, thats where you go to vote on the voting methods of voting on the voting methods (while discussing the rules for discussing the rules for discussing the possible methods).

[Jasdoif]

Hey, this isn't the Index of the Giants Comments, thats where you go to vote on the voting methods of voting on the voting methods (while discussing the rules for discussing the rules for discussing the possible methods).

On the other hand, the result of the original giant discussion there didn't turn into a formal vote for almost two-and-a-half-years; maybe this thread is better off!

[knag]

I note a distinct lack of approval voting in your list.

For cardinal voting systems I prefer STAR over approval voting, but I do see the elegance of only binary ratings being given to the candidates. I just like being able to express my approval with varying strength.

Regarding voting methods, my usual preference is for ranked-choice voting, but it seems rather awkward to rank individual people in this context. Maybe if the vote is anonymous, it wouldn't be too weird? (Also, y'all are putting my nerdy-by-most-standards knowledge of voting methods to shame. )

My first option (Schulze method) is a form of ranked choice. Glad you're a voting geek! I'd love to see more modern voting methods in wider use.

[Jasdoif]

For cardinal voting systems I prefer STAR over approval voting, but I do see the elegance of only binary ratings being given to the candidates. I just like being able to express my approval with varying strength.

My first option (Schulze method) is a form of ranked choice. Glad you're a voting geek! I'd love to see more modern voting methods in wider use.

I always like to consider approval voting because it's easy to explain (something which Schulze, for all its strengths, is not), and also bypasses psychological tendencies towards middle scores by not having middle scores. Not everyone who wants to vote is well-versed or particularly interested in deep details of voting methods, after all.

[Precure]

Hey, half of smileys gone.

[Schroeswald]

I always like to consider approval voting because it's easy to explain (something which Schulze, for all its strengths, is not), and also bypasses psychological tendencies towards middle scores by not having middle scores. Not everyone who wants to vote is well-versed or particularly interested in deep details of voting methods, after all.

And there isn't a CGP Grey video about Schulze method unlike others (for the record, I support either a fairly simple Alternative Vote or Approval Voting).

[TheWombatOfDoom]

Hey, half of smileys gone.

That will have to be one of the many things we work on repairing when someone takes over the project, restoring the smilies to a forum acceptable site.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

It seems that the period for declaration of candidacy is over. The current candidates are knag, Schroeswald, TheWombatOfDoom, and Emanick.

The question now is not who we choose but how we choose.

[Emanick]

It seems that the period for declaration of candidacy is over. The current candidates are knag, Schroeswald, TheWombatOfDoom, and Emanick.

The question now is not who we choose but how we choose.

I'm guessing a pie-eating contest is out?

Probably for the best, as I'm merely average at pie-eating.

[b_jonas]

The question now is not who we choose but how we choose.

We compare their Knowledge (local) skill modifiers.

[knag]

We compare their Knowledge (local) skill modifiers.

I think Knowledge (Limits of My Own Sanity) is the relevant check for this bunch.

[Jasdoif]

The question now is not who we choose but how we choose.

Admittedly I may be biased, but I believe you and I are the only non-candidates who expressed an opinion on a specific voting method. So I guess the question is whether there's hope for someone willing to run the Doge method to come along....I preferred playing as Shok, myself; but that's a completely different Doge.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

Admittedly I may be biased, but I believe you and I are the only non-candidates who expressed an opinion on a specific voting method. So I guess the question is whether there's hope for someone willing to run the Doge method to come along....I preferred playing as Shok, myself; but that's a completely different Doge.

The Doge method? All right, let's run it. We need a time machine, three cardinals, and a dank meme.

On a more serious note, the argument that most other methods of voting either are unfair or require the off-putting ranking of candidates, in addition to the common use of the method on other threads and its simplicity, would lead me to endorse approval voting as best here.

[Emanick]

The Doge method? All right, let's run it. We need a time machine, three cardinals, and a dank meme.

On a more serious note, the argument that most other methods of voting either are unfair or require the off-putting ranking of candidates, in addition to the common use of the method on other threads and its simplicity, would lead me to endorse approval voting as best here.

I don't know whether it's in poor taste for candidates to weigh in on voting methods, but I, for one, think approval voting is a good idea. My only concern is the potential for a tie, since there may not be a lot of voters.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I don't know whether it's in poor taste for candidates to weigh in on voting methods, but I, for one, think approval voting is a good idea. My only concern is the potential for a tie, since there may not be a lot of voters.

It's only a conflict of interest if it's the Emanick method of voting, I think. ("Ties will be decided by the number of capital Es in the candidates' usernames.")

With this number of voters, there's potential for a tie in any method, and we can cross that bridge when we come to it.

[knag]

Here's my proposal: we do a single vote first-past-the-post election of voting system.

You can vote to:

Approve the candidates (list all candidates and vote yes or no on all of them)

--or--

Rank the candidates (list all candidates in order of preference. With this number of voters, which ranked choice method used likely won't make any difference)

Then we proceed with voting for thread curated using the elected method. If we use approval voting and there is a tie, we do a run-off between the top two. If there is still a tie, we go to a Trial by Stone.

[Jasdoif]

If there is still a tie, we go to a Trial by Stone.

Random ballot amongst the podlings to determine who goes first, popcorn initiative from there?

[Doug Lampert]

Random ballot amongst the podlings to determine who goes first, popcorn initiative from there?

All voting methods fail at least one criteria of Arrow's Theorem:
1) If every voter prefers alternative X over alternative Y, then the group prefers X over Y.
2) If every voter's preference between X and Y remains unchanged, then the group's preference between X and Y will also remain unchanged (even if voters' preferences between other pairs like X and Z, Y and Z, or Z and W change).
3) There is no "dictator": no single voter possesses the power to always determine the group's preference.

1 is obviously desirable, it's bad when something everyone agrees on isn't satisfied by a vote.
2 is also clearly desirable, irrelevant alternatives are irrelevant.
So since you can't have 1, 2, and 3 it seems that three needs to go.

Randomly select one voter, and appoint him dictator, he determines the new thread curator.

[Jasdoif]

All voting methods fail at least one criteria of Arrow's Theorem

Arrow's impossibility theorem applies only to ranked voting systems, and only when there are three or more options.

[Peelee]

I would like to implement Trial By Combat.

[ByzantiumBhuka]

I would like to implement Trial By Combat.

Roll for initiative, everyone!

[Schroeswald]

That would turn it into a fight between knag and the WombatOfDoom, they have powers, all Emanick can do is be bounced on, and all I can do is make music.

But I rolled a 12, with my DEX of 12 thats a 13.
I used a random number generator for the roll and I think a 12 is probably an accurate description of my DEX, btw.

[Emanick]

As is entirely consistent with my typical luck on initiative rolls, I rolled a 2. Taking into account my penalty, that's a 1. I'll go last.