Scratch

Two of the candidates are admins on the wiki!

Chrischb wrote:

JJROCKER wrote:

Two of the candidates are admins on the wiki!

That's cool but that doesn't really affect someone's ability to moderate? 

It's just cool. Besides, it also shows that those candidates can handle responsibility.
And two of the candidates are SDS curators. 
Hey, they overlap!    <--

when are the results announced?

Jonathanpb wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Chrischb wrote:

That's cool but that doesn't really affect someone's ability to moderate? 

It's just cool. Besides, it also shows that those candidates can handle responsibility.
And two of the candidates are SDS curators. 
Hey, they overlap!    <--

Being a wiki admin only means that you're allowed to use some more tools - the only responsibility is in the account creation    I see your point though.

Hey, you need to be responsible to delete stuff. 

RedRocker227 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Religious reasons.

Ah. I respect that.

Everyone's guessing who will win. I'm going to guess who won't win.

[removed by moderator]

yeah I don't know besides that lol I'm just pretty sure [removed by moderator] won't

That seems pretty disrespectful, singling one person out as the worst. 

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

EDIT BY ME: Gah Paddle, you forgot to close the bracket. 

Last edited by scimonster (2012-04-12 05:45:28)

scimonster wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

veggieman001 wrote:

Ah. I respect that.

Everyone's guessing who will win. I'm going to guess who won't win.

[removed by moderator]

yeah I don't know besides that lol I'm just pretty sure [removed by moderator] won't

That seems pretty disrespectful, singling one person out as the worst. 

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

I'd still say it's pretty disrespectful though. Just my opinion though. ^^'

scimonster wrote:

Paddle2See wrote:

scimonster wrote:

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

Regardless of the motivation for the post - it's likely to cause the candidate unnecessary pain.  There's no need to single people out like that 

Couldn't singling people out as the winners also make the people not mentioned feel bad? 

To a degree yes, but at least if you only list the top three (as many people have done), they're not the only ones not mentioned, in fact half the candidates weren't mentioned.

scimonster wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

Couldn't singling people out as the winners also make the people not mentioned feel bad? 

To a degree yes, but at least if you only list the top three (as many people have done), they're not the only ones not mentioned, in fact half the candidates weren't mentioned.

True, true. As Sparks wisely said last time.

That link just confused me because it linked to things that I had forgotten that I had said 

RedRocker227 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

That seems pretty disrespectful, singling one person out as the worst. 

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

I'd still say it's pretty disrespectful though. Just my opinion though. ^^'

Guys even though some of the candidates were well known there was no need to post who you think is not going to get it they all have a equall chance of winning. Because most of them got signatures advertising themselves for moderater there fore veggieman001 had no right to post that and there should be no more discussion about it. For well known reasons to some people.
But good luck to every candidate and make sure you don't feel to bad if you don't get the 2-3 chances of winning.    There is always next year! ;D

SCRATCH ON

Unite wrote:

scimonster wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

To a degree yes, but at least if you only list the top three (as many people have done), they're not the only ones not mentioned, in fact half the candidates weren't mentioned.

True, true. As Sparks wisely said last time.

Well that conversation in which you lead us to, was strange. They were missing the fact that no one "wins", the Scratch Team will pick out 2-3 like they said.

I totally agree with you Unite but if we possibly found out the numbers of votes then we would have a winner second and third. I have my own ideas on them possitions of course and I think it is unfair if we do not get to know the votes. I have never been here for an ellection. So I do not know.

James07 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

RedRocker227 wrote:

That seems pretty disrespectful, singling one person out as the worst. 

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

EDIT BY ME: Gah Paddle, you forgot to close the bracket. 

Mods don't want scratchers  to disrespectful to Mods thats why it says i think removed by moderator will not win!   

Scimonster I don't think so I just think Veggieman001 was being disrespect full no offenceTo Veggieman001. I think it would be better to say who would win than who won't. So here is my chioce if 2 are chosen: [i] Scimonster[i]
[i] Sparks[i]
and if three are chosen: [i]scimonster[i] [i]sparks[i] and maybe...I don't know actually... the rest have a equall chance of winning. Thats why I chose the rest at random.

Mokat wrote:

James07 wrote:

scimonster wrote:

I don't think veggie was saying [removed by moderator] was the worst candidate, just that s/he had the least support, and therefore was unlikely to win.

EDIT BY ME: Gah Paddle, you forgot to close the bracket. 

Mods don't want scratchers  to disrespectful to Mods thats why it says i think removed by moderator will not win!   

nOT FUNNY.KINDA!