User:Joe Gazz84/ArbCom/Voting/Guide

I will write questions, I will ask questions, and I will read your responses to the general questions and questions asked by others. I will ask abstract questions, ones requiring you do some thinking, not just "yes or no" style questions. As an arbitrator, you need to be open-minded and ready to "investigate" without a lot of detail. I want you to think, I don't want to give you a lot of detail, because a lot of the time arbitrators don't have a lot of information and need to think abstractly to figure things out and interpret what they're given. I don't feel it is necessary to "interrogate" candidates by asking a lot of questions, so the most questions you'll see from me is 5. I feel that I can tell whether or not a candidate is capable of handling the responsibility of sitting on ArbCom by the way they answer their questions.

There are certain questions I will give weight to though, and those are these:
 * Questions 1-5 from the questions I wrote,
 * Question 6: Private Information
 * Question 7: Division of Responsibilities
 * Question 10: Proposals for Change

Please remember though, these questions will not be the only things that go into my decision, I will also check the following:
 * History of Dispute Resolution Skills.
 * Involvement in past disputes,
 * Previous blocking history,
 * Past involvement with ArbCom,
 * Other voters guide's to see what they believe to be important to point out or base a decision on.

I will, in addition to the above, factor personal interactions into this vote. If I have had repeated poor interaction with a candidate, that will discount their chances in getting my vote greatly. If I have had positive interactions on a regular basis, that will help the candidate to gain my vote.

I do not believe that ArbCom members are something special, they fill a stressful, tiring, and otherwise painful role. They are generally not liked, and to be honest, I don't like them either, but they are a necessary part of our community. I believe that ArbCom members are not to be trusted and they they are sneaky and slimy. I don't trust ArbCom members, but we need them, and with that said, these candidates will need to impress me greatly for me to vote for them, seeing as I don't trust the committee.

I'd finally like to point out that I will not judge any current arbitrator on the case regarding Sophie. That case was of the utmost sensitivity and it was extremely controversial. This is not to say that I won't point out your interactions on that case, it is just to say that I will not factor that case into voting. My involvement (although not named) with that case was deep, and there were several "misunderstandings" and "conflicts of interest" with that case, so I will avoid another COI and leave that case out of my judgement with current arbitrators.

The following opinions are solely mine and mine along and do not reflect any influence of any other editor or party. I will vote how I feel, not how you want me to vote. I strongly encourage you to read several guides and vote how your heart and mind tell you to vote, not the way this guide tells you to vote unless it is what your heart and mind tell you to do.

 JoeGazz  ♂

Last Update: 21:44, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

What My Votes Mean

 * Strong Support &mdash; the user is a necessity for the committee to have and it would be bad for that user not to be a part of the committee.
 * Support &mdash; the user is a good candidate for the committee to have and would be beneficial for the committee to have.
 * Abstain/Undecided &mdash; the user is not good nor bad for the committee, they could improve, but they could also be worse.
 * Oppose &mdash; the user is not a good choice for the committee, they could be a potential problem from past experience and from answers to their questions.
 * Strong Oppose &mdash; the user would cause the committee to fail, they would cause a "block" in the committee and cause more problems than would be solved.

Candidates

 *  Adapted from NuclearWarfare 
 * ''Note: All "Likely Oppose" or "Likely Support" votes will be removed by the end of the election and replaced with the actual oppose/support vote that the candidate received. Those votes are normally used in cases where the candidate hasn't finished answering questions or has been asked for clarification.