2016 questions:
Each nominee shall be given a chance to answer this set of questions, with each question being valued on a scale of 0 to 5 (8 for the last question).
Grading is the last part of this - I note here which candidates have not yet answered all of my questions posed:
For the questions I posed, the grading is based on whether the person actually sees the same issues I see regarding the Committee.
Candidate | Grade |
---|---|
Calidum | 14.5 Recommend |
Delta Quad | 15.0 Recommend |
DGG | 13.0 C |
Doug Weller | 13.5 C |
Euryalus | 17.0 Recommend |
Ks0stm | 13.0 C |
LFaraone | 7.0 incomplete |
Newyorkbrad | 15.5 Recommend |
Mkdw | 12.5 C |
Salvidrim | 12.5 C |
Writ Keeper | 12.0 C |
Grading: Answers which show no particular original thought will get a "Gentleperson's 'C'".
Internally contradictory answers, or answer which appear to fail in understanding anything in my opinion can manage to get a zero only by really trying hard to do so.
The goal is to use questions as a tool to understand the thought processes of candidates more than anything else. A total score of 14.5 will be the cut-off for "recommended" and any scores 9 or less will be an outright "F". 9.5 to 14.0 will be a "C." I do not base any of this on personal opinions about any candidates, nor do I reduce scores for "non-admins" or the like.
![]() | These guides represent the thoughts of their authors. All individually written voter guides are eligible for inclusion. |