change the current sra voting system

↩  Luke The real erin was the friends we made along the way

In the old days, it would work like this:

Applications and voting would commence just like any other applications. But then it would lock, and then a vote would commence in the senior section as to who you would pick.
So say if you had 3 applicants
You would say either 1, multiple or none.

↩  Luke 90% seems about right for the traditional role of senior admin—something for which we don't want a truly conflicted vote to result in approval, but 100% would just lead to people objecting just to spoil the result. Maybe changing it to "all but three" or something...

Removing the strict prerequisite of a recommendation, though, would certainly make it easier in a way I could actually get behind. (No, this is totally not me subtly hinting at the fact I can't get myself to ask anyone for a recommendation...)

Also why is there a voting system for a app that only comes around a few times a year and some people just get rejected because they did not hit 90 percent and have to wait even more months just to have another chance for senior

↩  Luke this isnt accurate btw refer to my post on the other threat. You missed out the fact that video accounted for proper reasoning in vouches

↩  Luke The high vouch percentage is required because senior admin is the highest attainable rank on the server (barring executive roles, as they are a separate branch of power). I would expect someone who has the highest rank of power to have a certain level of public approval at the time of their application. I understand that as times change, sentiment may change (which is perhaps a separate discussion); but at the time of the application the applicant should have widespread public support.

I feel that 1 object for every 10 vouches is more than fair. Had Telesphoreo achieved three more vouchers, my objection would have been superseded. If he is popular and has public approval, it would not be difficult to achieve these three vouches.

If you look at all senior applications after the 90% rule, you’ll see that more have been approved than denied. This suggests that most senior admins do have this public mandate as a direct result of the 90% rule. Therefore, the few who do get denied obviously do not have the same level of support as those who got accepted.

The support varies proportionally though, which is a possible point of contention. Two objections would need twenty vouches and so forth.

I'm fine with not doing the locking, but I feel I should address one of the points you presented.

Quote

↩  Luke why do we need a second voting period that basically makes the first voting period redundant?

With applications being public, it is extremely easy to influence the outcome of on an application by simply being popular with the community or having someone with influence back you. The Senior voting stage acts as a layer of defense against this to enforce quality control. Tizz put it really well in his reply:

Quote

↩  Tizz I’ve always thought it’s like popular vote first, if passed then senior discussion.

Quote

↩  Luke this is the point i’m making. all it takes is one single person to override everyone else. all it takes is a person and their buddy to override 18 other people. all it’d take to override a voterbase of 50 vouches would be bobpop’s retarded gang.

i believe 80% would be fairer while still maintaining the high standards expected from SrA

Of the senior admin applications that were made since the 90% rule, the majority have been accepted. This method has a track record of providing popular and able administrators who are unlikely to cause problems as they have an overwhelming majority of support. The word “support” should really be swapped for “overwhelming support”, as that’s ideally what a senior admin should have.

If the rule really was as strict as you claim, we would be seeing far more denials. We have seen one out of three this round - which shows it’s far from impossible to get 90%. If you are failing to get 90%, perhaps you need to consider why and how to improve it.

I'm going to add a little bit to the mix here. But before I do, let me put this disclaimer out. I respect the decision that was given on my senior app and by making this post, I'm not trying to sway anyone's opinion, or try to get it reopened. I'm just adding a bit of perspective here.

https://packs.smokes-crystal.rocks/KMIKQbzGbK.png

I've counted up all the votes from every senior application. Note that I may have miscounted, feel free to double check my work.

I'm going to operate on the assumption that neutrals aren't taken into the final count, but I'm still waiting on a response. Overall, my app got the fewest amount of counting votes (neutrals don't count in this hypothetical situation). I honestly put my app on the backburner and I probably would have yielded more votes if I had bumped the thread. I can't actually find when the threshold rule was put into place, but the total votes of the previous applications was much higher. It's not really my place to say whether it should be changed, but I will note that it is hostile towards applicants who don't receive a lot of votes. Any case where there is less than ten votes, unless all of them are vouches, you're out of luck. It's hard for me to think of a better system on such a small scale. I've also heard that some vouches don't count because of no valid reasoning. There's a much higher margin for that if your application has a higher pool of votes in total. I'm gonna leave it at that for now because I'm smoking some brisket and it's now just finishing.

The Admin Information Megathread needs to be updated to reflect the new Response Instructions. It doesn't make it clear if it's the votes or the individual feedbacks to be counted.

↩  Tizz good spot, I will make an attempt at redoing the thread to be as clear and up to date as possible.

90% is higher than snoop dog

I vouch.

From the perspective of an admin, at this moment in time there are very few admins (I believe 3 out of 8 ) who can actually apply for senior if recommended. As a result, we cannot meet the demand for seniors as quickly (there are not enough nowadays) and so things like the 2 week process add extra time for no reason whatsoever.

edit: my vouch is only for the 2 week grace period to be removed

Object - The reason we have a private second level of voting is because it insulates Senior Admins from being influenced by pressure politics when voting.