User:Badger Drink/ACE2011

Clue
I don't have the most exhaustive list of criteria. It all boils down to "does this particular candidate strike me as a particularly intelligent and thoughtful voice". I don't have complicated rubrics, I don't have long tangents of "this issue and that issue and that other issue are important, and the correct views are x, y, and z", because a candidate who I consider clueful will, by definition, tend to have largely the same biases as I myself do. The questions which I felt gave the most opportunity to distinguish between the "clued" and the "clueless" were Q3 and Q8 from the standard list, Rschen's Q3, Q4, and Q10, and NuclearWarfare's Q1 and Q3.

I understand that this may not be the most "insightful" of criteria, and is far from the most eloquent, but I believe it to be the most honest and the most flexible criteria I myself could possibly manage.

Nota bene
I am currently the subject of an RfC (links available wherever fine links are sold). Since making my initial statement on the RfC, I have not returned to read the subsequent chatterings and developments, nor do I plan to. At the time of my voting and the initial composition of this guide, I was happily ignorant of whatever positions the various candidates may or may not have taken (though, as is elaborated upon below, I had strong reason to infer the participation of and position taken by one particular candidate) - though while working on this guide, I have since "cheated" and read a few voter guides (particularly Kiefer's). I am somewhat heartened, though honestly less-than-surprised, to find that candidates' behavior there was pretty much in keeping with the opinions I had already formed.

Currently Running
(all rights and edits and various minutiae gleefully and willfully stolen from User:NuclearWarfare's guide).

Withdrawn
N/A