Erik Moeller wrote:
Toby Bartels wrote:
Erik Moeller wrote:
The Condorcet vote is of no relevance whatsoever.
Simply because you have so decreed, AFAICT.
Your point being?
First, being not meant so brusquely, sorry. (Although actually it wasn't so brusque in the orginal.) But anyway ...
The whole setup looks very odd for Wikipedia. Why is Erik deciding by fiat how things are run? Given that you are, what's the relevance of your comment that you won't participate if they're not run as you like, and other people's comments that they will do it in that case? Why does Tillwe not think that you can make these decisions? This is all a highly unusual thing for Wikipedia, where one person (other than Jimbo) can just say so and it's so. Thus it's no surprise that some people don't like how it's happening. If you're going to assert your authority, then people should know why.
And my point is not to demand that you tell /me/ why; I suspect that I could find out by doing some research. The point is that the reasons for your authority are unclear to people that come into the process to make their votes. Hence "AFAICT" = "as far as I [such a voter] can tell".
But anyway, I apologise if this sounded like an accusation.
-- Toby