I want to add some important clarification as this voting process was prepared and thought out carefully (and I played a role in that).
(1) I do agree with everything TBest states above.
(2) As I stated earlier: it's probably not the ideal way to do it, but one of the best ones at the given moment. It's always easier to see the potential mistakes in hindsight. We made all necessary choices in advance so there was minimal chance of bias after seeing the actual results, but this allowed for less flexibility to adapt to the candidates and voting totals.
(3) The main reason why there was a vote if I understand well, is because the idea is that the clans themselves (all of them) have the power (=democracy), not one or a few people who determine everything. (=dictatorship) There was a strong push to not have things done with a limited panel and involve all clans. This was the most feasible way to do this I'd say as an organization and ethics panel with all clans would have been too unwieldy to work. This is a compromise, so I don't expect everyone to agree, but good compromises are important. If both extremes are unhappy, we probably did something right.
Some more technical comments
- We had a very brief discussion about indeed limiting it to 3 after seeing the results. However, since it was explicitly stated before that we would follow whatever option got the most votes, we decided to stick with this, even though it was only a plurality (highest number of votes) and not a majority (more than 50%). When including the votes for the actual outcome (5, including multiple linked to the same clan), a majority is always reached.
- Please note the asymmetric scoring system: 0=oppose, 1=neutral, 2=support, 3=prefer. Getting a score of more than 50% is already quite impressive. The baseline, everyone voting neutral is only 33%! To reach 50%, half of the clans need to support a candidacy, or 33% need to prefer this candidate. Example: as you can see for yourself: a large majority of clans supported psykkoman, he received a lot of 2 votes.
- I really don't like the argument that not knowing someone means they do not qualify for a job. Companies would hire very few people and become nepotist bastions if they'd do that. (Yes, some do, rarely ends well.) Meanwhile, being known isn't necessarily positive either. We asked the questions for this reason and the candidate's answers should give plenty of information about them. Meanwhile, clan leaders had ample time to vote, giving them the opportunity to ask around as well if necessary.
Additionally, all candidates have a reasonably high level and have been around for at least some time, so certainly for each candidate there were plenty of people out there who do know them. Knowing someone or not is relative after all as we all play with different people.
(Example: If I made a panel with the people I knew best, it would consist of Yeon, Jackie Treehorn, Gus squared, Alcarmacil and Blue Precision. I all know them well and trust them and that's the only criterion right? So please welcome your new ethics panel, just have to find out if BP still remembers what Warlight is...)
Finally a few replies.
12 people voted NOT to expand to 5 members
This statement is incorrect: 8 (out of 24) opposed 5 members, 15 (out of 24) agreed with it (4 wanting it, 11 agreeing with expanding if 4th and 5th candidate reached the 50% threshold).
You are missing my point on the vote.
...
I am totally fine not getting in. I knew the way I answered the questions wouldn't sit well with some. I would rather take one for the team and miss out, than to just let a process I thought was very flawed take place without saying anything.
I think this does summarize well what you can also see in the votes where many prefer you (25%) while also receiving the most opposition of any candidate (also 25%). I personally have nothing against the choice you made, but if this indeed swayed voters against you where every single point would have made a difference, that is too bad. You are of course free to criticize the process. I've learned the hard way myself that there is a time and place for rebellious acts and maybe in your application was not the best choice. Still, I do appreciate everything you've done for CL in the past and your willingness to be involved again.
I am writing this as a speculation
...
the first half corresponds to players/clans who know Chris well and more than the second half
...
The number/ID's for the clan is made by me smashing 5 numbers on my keyboard ;) Then, we sorted it according to the number's size, to make it easier to look up before publishing it. This also makes the order of clan random. If you find any meaning in there I will be kinda impressed :P
There is absolutely no order indeed. I did check this and if there would have been, I would have found it. Be aware that some sort of pattern will always appear when you keep searching. People are very good at finding patterns that don't exist (this is in fact very well known in statistical literature and the cause of many studies that can't be replicated). Hence, I will not be impressed at all if you find any pattern, but I can already tell you that it will be a spurious result.
Without looking at the actual clans (which I could in principle but will not do to avoid any risk of removing anonymity), I would add that I would find it quite unlikely that someone would oppose a candidate that they don't know at all. The logical result would be to vote neutral (1) instead. My guess (again: without looking at the actual clans) would be that most 0's and 3's do know Chris well.
With that all said, I would personally greatly appreciate if we could now (let the committee) focus on what needs to be done and not on the voting process.
If there are any comments or doubts about the quality of the actual work of the ethics panel in the future, we are happy to hear it.
