Bob and Irrelious would have been peachy with me also.
Arcturus descending would be fine too.
Dan would be interesting. I have no idea what that would be like. That might be a good thing, the not knowing, that is, might be founded on something in Dan that would stir things up, well, interestingly.
I choose that you donate it to carleas so they can have less ads and so that on top of putting up with all of us, he doesn’t have to shell out the bucks to keep it running.
I’ll self-nominate, PavlovianModel146, but there are at least three people I’d vote for before even voting for myself.
PM is fine with me also. Call that a second if I am still allowed or we are doing such things.
Do I vote here? I vote for James
I’ll make a new thread for voting. I’ll get in touch with any nominees that haven’t accepted the nomination to make sure their willing. I said 48 hours, so I’ll aim to post the voting thread around 17 UTC on April 26th. I’ll keep updating the OP as people get back to me.
Moreno seems to be gifted with posts in every area of the forum.
However if I ever did get voted in somehow, I would be trying my best to do the job right.
I think you have enough nominees that you can also have a “floater moderator” now to stand in and adopt the rules of whichever forum for times when the official mods are on leave. In that way the rules could get reinforced more readily and thus reduce contention escalation.
Thank you to those who have nominated me - why, I cannot begin to fathom albeit I do appreciate it - but I will have to decline. My time schedule fluctuates intermittently and aside from that I am just learning to be a friendly agnostic. I do not think that I could be so unbiased.
I nominate the little reptile - turtle.
You have made good unbiased replies. One recently to 3Sum.
You should reconsider.
Unfortunately, the nominating period ended. I’d love to accept additional nomination, but for fairness and the legitimacy of the election, I need to stick to the rules I laid out in the OP.
And once you arrive at the result are you going to further vet the candidate for how they have posted on your website? Perhaps checking for style in how they are able to stick to the pertinence of the topic, or how often they have imparted less then philosophical rigor in their remarks, or will it be example of a popularity contest?
Logically, Carleas should have disqualified an unsuitable candidate before the voting began.
It would not look good for him to reject the winner.
Such subtle assessments are beyond the scope of the people here.
Carleas’ approval voting decision was probably the best available choice he could have made under the circumstances.
I toyed with vetting, and I’m glad it didn’t ultimately come up (all the nominees were good candidates). The inclusion of a few guidelines about who could be nominated and who could vote were cludges to get at a similar idea, and I don’t think I would have vetoed anyone who could make it through them.
I agree with Phyllo, it would not have looked good to reject the winner. When resorting to a democratic process, it is often the case that the validity of the process is more important than the outcome.
In some respects I believe it would have not looked bad “on him” at all. That and this, is opinion, Dan is ok; the least ‘offensive’ of the lot, and it’s the religion forum after all. Of coarse, I reserve the imperative to change this opinion as the choice plays out.
I’m not the least offensive? I actually take a strange little bit of pride in that…lol
Where did I rank on the offensive list?
Pavlovianmodel why are you not offensive? You definitely offended me with your remarks about my post. Did you see the depression I got into because of it? It was a short but intense depression and it was your fault.
I am being mild with your ranking.
Congratulations, Dan. I wish you many golden moments.