Cherry_lover said:
Souffle said:
chronodekar said:
Since people can change their votes, this might not last long but at the time of this post,
Dickhead's who've voted for themselves,
TkMacintosh
chronodekar
Irksome Productions
souffle
Oh no i voted for myself how could I
Maybe i should vote for one of these people i know and trust and talk to all the time because I have such a great handle on their character
Honestly, I'd say
not voting for yourself raises questions (given that you had to agree to be nominated), since it implies you either don't think you're the best candidate or else are deliberately not voting for yourself in order to con people into thinking you're "selfless".
I didn't vote for myself mainly because I think it's very poor form to do so. Never did it once before, never will. Way I see it, it's everyone else who should vote for you if they think you're the right man for the job. Sure, YOU may think you're the big cheese and all, but that doesn't make you smell like roses all of a sudden.
If the people I'm supposed to mod over think I'm the right man, then good. What I think of myself has zero impact in others' decision. Or at least that's how it should be.
Of course, I also loudly declared that people would have to be a bit nuts to vote for me (which I still think and which is totally true), but if they think I'm trustworthy, then I'm going to take the job and do my level best at it.
Although, I suspect the fact that I'm one of those rare individuals who wouldn't abuse mod powers to do poorly-tasteful crap like 'win' arguments may have to do with it. I detest this kind of pettiness, so I'm rather unlikely to do it. Sure, I'm liable to eat your face if I get in an argument with you, but I'll do it fair and square, not hide behind the threat of moderating. That's uncool, yo.
This is just my $0.02, anyway. I still think we have 34 nutjobs on this board as of right now.
chronodekar said:
There is SOME validity in this argument, but I lean like this,
We're voting to elect someone. Every single person who's in the election has self-confirmed their nomination. We expect them to be self-confident (and enthusiastic) to do the job - I translate this as self-voting.
Now, for sake of argument lets say that you voted for someone else. What does that mean for the people who voted for YOU? I consider that as back-stabbing.
The situation would be a little different if we either didn't allow any of the candidates to vote themselves OR we didn't allow self-voting. Neither of which is practical to implement here.
-chronodekar
That's a good point, but look at it like this: candidates may be confident enough in their skill to feel they simply don't NEED to vote for themselves, thinking their reputation speaks for them or some such crap.
(I personally think that's a bunch of baloney, but a few candidates in the recent US elections thought exactly that, and Berlusconi also seems to think that here in Italy, and it apparently works)
Me, I simply find self-voting in poor taste, regardless of whether I think I'm the best pick or not. It just... smells of self-aggrandizing. Being confident is good, being egocentric is not.
*shrug*