Geeza wrote:
If I'm not mistaken votes are supposed to be kept to yourselves, replying saying oh let's vote for Needy be sure she's the best candidate. You're lowering the other people who have ran for election or for possible runners. They will see that and be like oh I'm not going to run for election because most of the people have backed needy up publically.
This is not how it's supposed to be. They want more people to run for election, not less.
Pledging support/approval/disapproval/asking questions to reps about what they wish to see happen/criticizing them (within forum rules) is all ok for below Staff members to do here.
I would however encourage anyone to run for rep regardless of how successful other reps are, votes are anonymous after all, maybe you submitting yourself to the election will get someone switch their potential vote, or maybe not, you truly don't know. Also the point of it being an election is to try and get elected the rep who'd best represent what you want in the community, if you think that's you yourself you will probs have different ideas than other candidates, in which case the reception of them to the "voters" should be your primary concern.
If anything you can gauge what is welcomed by the community by comparing the no. votes for a candidate and what their topic contains. Staff+ end goal is not to get more people to run for elections, rather it is to have the best (whatever that would be in the eyes of below Staff) elected reps possible. I think the current way is better in achieving that than what you propose.
I ask to keep further meta/unrelated discussions away from any rep's individual topic, or they will be moved/deleted as Staff+ sees fit. (meta as in not directly discussing the specific rep or their actions/ideas)
Apologies Needy for going offtopic in your topic.
Smiles
