• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

VOTING BOOTH - Vote for Stormtrack's 2011 Q1-Q2 moderators

Who do you choose for Stormtrack moderator? (multiple choice is ok)

  • Bart Comstock

    Votes: 55 28.5%

  • Danny Neal

    Votes: 86 44.6%

  • Scott Hammel

    Votes: 24 12.4%

  • Skip Talbot

    Votes: 144 74.6%

  • Jesse Risley

    Votes: 99 51.3%

  • Brandon Sullivan

    Votes: 67 34.7%

  • Mark Blue

    Votes: 42 21.8%

  • Charley Kelly

    Votes: 15 7.8%

  • Robert Edmonds

    Votes: 25 13.0%
  • Total voters
    193
  • Poll closed .
Mark Blue said:
Can you clarify what you mean by the above William as I'm not sure I understand.
Click to expand...

I believe he was referring to people who sign up just to vote and have 0 or 1 post. Jason was saying you need to be around for 10 or so posts to vote and William says he likes to lurk and doesn't post all that much so he shouldn't be restricted.... at least that is what I got out of that :P
 
I cannot imagine someone who would pay the fee to gain access only to vote and then call it quits. I suppose anything is possible, but it seems like the chances of that happening are pretty remote IMO. I don't necessarily agree with someone needing a certain number of posts in order to have voting privileges either, but who am I to say?

I was actually just perusing the old election threads from 6 and 12 months ago and the one prior to that in July 2008. It's interesting to see where we've been and where we're going each time a 'changing of the guard' comes along. It's an interesting read if you have the time and persistence to search them out.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I offered up a comparison to another site. It would be interesting to see someone signing up multiple accounts at $5 each just to vote multiple times. But I wouldn't put it past a person in today's world. The min. requirement would prevent quick non-legit accounts just for voting purposes. I'm not really worried about lurkers. We do seem to have quite a few...as I browse the list of members below 10 posts and there is a decent number that have checked things out within the past week. I'm sure a HUGE majority of below 100 posts have checked in at least once in the past two weeks.
 
Robert Dewey said:
If you're getting people to pay to vote for you, you're running in the wrong election :)
Click to expand...
This is a very important social status maker in the storm chase community! Who cares who I pay off to vote for me..... I mean :)

Yeah, I don't see someone throwing 5$ away just to win a 6 month spot. I think multiple voting drew in a better consensus. I wonder how the results would look right now if we were limited to one vote like before?
 
Danny Neal said:
I wonder how the results would look right now if we were limited to one vote like before?
Click to expand...

I actually liked the way we did the polls before when the results weren't known until the end and folks could only vote for one candidate. I wonder how many people have voted for 5 or 6 candidates versus 3 or 4 since that's how many slots are open? There wasn't a limit on the max number someone could vote for, but I doubt it would have much of an effect either way. It would probably look similar to how it currently appears as far as results are concerned, but it's kind of hard to say.
 
Mark Blue said:
I actually liked the way we did the polls before when the results weren't known until the end and folks could only vote for one candidate. I wonder how many people have voted for 5 or 6 candidates versus 3 or 4 since that's how many slots are open? There wasn't a limit on the max number someone could vote for, but I doubt it would have much of an effect either way. It would probably look similar to how it currently appears as far as results are concerned, but it's kind of hard to say.
Click to expand...

I agree with the results being hidden. I like multiple voting because you aren't just picking one person (since there will be 4). I think it gives the users more of a say who they want running things temporarily. I think it leads away from the popularity contest to an extent. Sure you CAN only vote for one, but I think giving the option to vote for others will open others minds to the other candidates other than the one they would have voted for.
 
If multiple choice elections are the wave of the future I believe we need to have some sort of system edit that would allow a maximum of 3 votes per voter (or the total number of slots that are available).

IMHO an open poll tends to lend itself more to a popularity contest than a closed poll no matter how you slice it. The single most important aspect of this election is that we tried something new for a change instead of sticking with old reliable. We will never discover what works best for the ST community unless we are willing to try different methods as we go along. The only way to learn, grow, and not become stagnant is to be open to change. On this particular occasion I believe we scored a home run.
 
I think this setup is working really well actually, even if users are allowed to select more than the actual number of moderator spots available. I was worried that we'd get a distribution similar to what we saw in the logo poll where the winner was a minority, but instead the top three candidates stand out fairly strongly, with a majority or close to a majority of voters picking them. Had it not been for the multiple selection I think we would have seen something more akin to the logo poll, where candidates were splitting the vote.
 
Personally I voted and then seen the results, My votes were generally on par with the majority but If I didn't really want someone there I would have still voted against them even if they were at 100% so I don't think that popularity is a decider for most.....
 
Still a few hours to vote if you haven't done so already.

It looks like we had a pretty good turn out, with numbers about what we saw the last couple of elections. We probably have a few hundred inactive users, and not everyone is on here every week, so with the poll open just a week and 200 people voting this is probably a good representation of the active users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Tim Vasquez
  • Locked
Stormtrack Elections 2011 Q1 Q2
Replies
12
Views
5K
Tim Vasquez
Tim Vasquez
Back
Top