Forum:Election for a new CUSWFN co-head

Forums > Consensus track archive > Election for a new CUSWFN co-head

The following was a proposal to elect a new co-head for the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Fanon Newsletter. The result of the discussion was that Brandon Rhea was elected as the new co-head. This forum is an archive. Should you wish to add your opinion on the matter, please do so on the forum's talk page.

---

This forum is a proposal to elect a new co-head for the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Fanon Newsletter. The forum will last until May 27, 2009, unless additional time is required to reach a proper consensus.

I don’t know how many of you have read the latest edition of the Completely Unofficial Star Wars Fanon Newsletter, but I thought it was awful. I left a lot of criticism on the user comments section of the edition, but the editor decided to go back and add in sloppy rewrites that pissed off a few people in order to try to render my points void and useless. Those points still remain, however, despite the editor’s efforts. It is my belief, and it’s a belief that’s shared by a number of others on this wiki, that there needs to be a new co-head to try to keep this project on a more desirable and professional track. Right now, this is virtually a parody newsletter, what with non-serious reviews as “jokes” (I put it in quotes because the definition of a joke requires something to be funny) and editorial opinions in sections that they just shouldn’t be in. This, of course, is probably not everyone’s opinion, but it’s an opinion shared by a lot of people.

I’ve said enough for the introduction section about what I and others find to be the faults of CUSWFN. I’ll state more of my opinion in one of the following sections, as I don’t want to be committing libel in the introduction (slander is spoken….kudos if you catch the reference )! All matters of the voting policy apply. Feel free to nominate yourself. Please remain civil. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Voting procedure

Please note, if you do not believe that CUSWFN requires a new co-head, vote OPPOSE for all candidates who nominate themselves. Voting in SUPPORT means that you also affirm your support for a new co-head. If you want to nominate yourself then go right ahead. Just note that it’s suggested you’ve had some prior association with CUSWFN, although this is by no means required. The new co-head will begin his or her duties immediately.

Please use the following format for nominations:

=== [[User:USERNAME|USERNAME]] ===

==== (+/-#) ====

==== Support ====

==== Neutral ====

==== Oppose ====

==== Comments ====

Any questions about the vote should be placed on the forum’s talk page.

Nominations

Brandon Rhea

Support

1. I prefer not to nominate myself for things, but the whole reason I made this forum was so I could do it. I volunteered my services to Unit 8311 on IRC, but he didn’t seem too sure about me as a co-head or another co-head in general. Not very surprising, as this forum is basically a condemnation of him as he’s been a part of the decline of CUSWFN (him and Drewton, of course, but Unit’s the current sole head). I’ve said some of my opinion about CUSWFN above, but the worst thing about this recent edition is that it’s the most self-serving edition yet. Before Unit added his after-the-fact sloppy copy/paste additions to try to render my points useless, this was basically an edition of the Completely Unofficial Project Cruentus Newsletter. So basically, there are three main things I want to do if I’m the co-head: 1) ensure that issues are actually proofread rather than hastily thrown together and published without being triple checked; 2) create a proper Sponsors Update section that covers news and information, and contains things like interviews and media, from ALL sponsors; 3) refrain from copy/pasting interview answers from IRC or talk pages onto a page, but rather write proper articles about them. Anyway, if you want to vote for me, please do so. I know I had volunteered as a co-head once before and I wasn’t able to produce results, but that was a far busier time for me. It’s no longer like that, and I’m in a completely different work situations than I was. I can dedicate the necessary time to this. I appreciate your support. TL:DR version: this is a quote from someone on IRC paraphrasing what I’m saying here: “My fellow fanonians, I ask that you join me today as I teach you my Reaganomics. Just kidding. Let's give Bac more power, kk?” - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
2. Awesome. I would try to help you out if you become President Bombad General (Episode I as most people should remember). I have also, funny enough Brandon, asked Unit to allow me to bring back the IRC Conversations section. They were done some time ago but it does not matter as one conversation's history won't change and the other is has possibly changed. Now I read that you won't allow copy/pasting interview answers but I am not sure if these affects your pre-policy.. --Arav ^{(Ancient Grove) (Lost Archives)} 07:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
3. Now that the worst parts of the argument has passed. --Michaeldsuarez ^{(Talk) (Deeds)} 16:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
4. -- ^{(talk) (contributions)} 20:11, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
5. How can I not want to see "written by Unit and Baccus" on CUSWFN's main page? Wylind (Conference Room) 21:10, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
6. I also think the IRC convos should be brought back. You can really find some funny stuff in there! -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 22:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
   • #—Excelsior, SuperFlash101 - ^{(Talk to me, talk to me, talk to me bay-bay!)} 22:49, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
     • Vote void as the user does not meet the requirements of the voting policy. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 22:51, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
7. This isn't a clan. We don't need Unit's permission to do this. If the community supports it, it will go through. It's not like adding a new writer to "TCO" or anything like that. Fail argument. –Victor ^{(talk page)} 18:25, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Neutral

1. I wish our population wasn't so abysmally low, so that we could have someone other than Brandon running virtually everything. Not to say that Brandon would do a necessarily bad or good job (I'll leave my opinion of that out of this), but it isn't healthy for this community to have one person doing so many things. It only serves to underscore how well and truly f***ed SWFanon is, because our active (non-negligible) population can be counted on one hand. -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
   • I disagree. I don't feel that the "Brandon is in charge of everything" mindset is applicable anymore. We have a pretty good team of administrators, and I'm certainly not the only Seer doing work. I'm not trying to take charge of CUSWFN either. I'm just trying to fix it and put it back on the right track. When that's done, I'm done. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
     • Words out of my mouth, MPK. -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 20:46, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
       • Do you want to be a co-head MPK? If he does a good job, I'm happy. --Arav ^{(Ancient Grove) (Lost Archives)} 05:49, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
         • Geeze, no. I'd be a chump if I thought I could fit in mucking around with the Newsletter and my own CoS-related things (which I hardly keep afloat anyhow). -^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 13:23, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

• Okay, I gotta call on this. For starters, what gives you the right to simply go 'lolz i dont like dis new edition i gonan nomiant new led herhe'? Secondly, Drewton has announced that he is writing the next edition, so that renders this nonsense completely redundant. You don't like the CUSWFN? Fine, you don't have you read it. This is not an official position (hence the completly unofficial), so this farce of a 'election' is completely illegitimate, IMO. And secondly, if you wanted any sponsors shown in the new edition, you should have given me some press releases, as I said. I'm more pissed off at the fact that you didn't consult me about this first. I was considering letting you on, as I said on IRC, but with Drew seemingly coming back, at least unofficially, this is all pointless. Unit 8311^Talk! 11:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • As much as I was also disappointed with the latest edition, I have to agree with Unit on this. He is the sole person controlling the newsletter, he hasn't resigned, and it's unofficial. It's like trying to elect another writer to write The Chosen One, when it really has nothing to do with the community. IMO, there's no reason Unit has to follow this. I was indeed thinking of coming back (already started working on another edition last night) and that Unit and I could alternate every two weeks. And Unit is "part of the decline of SWF"? WTH? Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 12:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Unit, the position of co-head has always been chosen by the community, even if it's unofficial. Your tenure on this newsletter lasts only as long as the community wants it to. It may be the "unofficial" newsletter, but choosing people to help lead it is no different than choosing an administrator or a Seer. Anyone can nominate an administrator or a Seer, just as anyone can nominate a co-head for CUSWFN. It's not up to you to decide whether or not someone can be elected, or else this starts becoming a clan project. One of the conditions for allowing CUSWFN to exist was that it would not be like that, so you really can't try to make it like that. As for Drewton coming back, he resigned. He must be re-elected. He can't simply take his job back. That's not fair to people such as Tom or yourself, Unit, who have been legitimately elected in the past. As for the "decline of SWF" thing, that was a terrible, terrible typo that I somehow missed. I meant to say "decline of CUSWFN". I apologize for that one. My bad. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:14, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I left a lot of criticism on the user comments section of the edition, but the editor decided to go back and add in sloppy rewrites that pissed off a few people in order to try to render my points void and useless.
—Brandon

Emphasis mine. Aside from my comment above, the only thing I have to say here is that Unit has done this sort of thing in the past a number of times before (such as in GA/FA-related matters), and I for one believe that it is a low thing to do. -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 13:57, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I'm not done, actually. I agree that the Newsletter is in preposterous shape, but I don't think Unit has pants to do with it. The problem is that everything at this place is so damn small. All of the news about SWFanon itself is information that everyone already knows by the time the Newsletter is out. Everyone who cares about any fanon not written by themselves (these individuals can be counted on maybe two-thirds of a hand) already knows about whatever goes in the Fanon Updates section, everyone already knows about the FAs and GAs because there's so few of them (unless they just ignore them), the few people who give a hurling radioactive puke about the Newsletter have already read the essays in the SWM section by the time its out, and for the last several issues, no POTW has failed to disturb or startle me (no offense to Trak, but the thought process which would compel an artist to draw a half-naked chick with f***ing wings is simply an enigma to me). Our community is so hettyc small that the purpose of the Newsletter is all but defeated. -MPK ^{(MPK's Talk Page)} 13:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Good points. "Everyone who cares about any fanon not written by themselves (these individuals can be counted on maybe two-thirds of a hand) already knows about whatever goes in the Fanon Updates section," Indeed. If I'm still going to be doing the next edition (which again I've written a fair amount on already), I'm going to be including an interview and I'll try having some new information for various fanfics as well. "the few people who give a hurling radioactive puke about the Newsletter have already read the essays in the SWM section by the time its out," I've wanted the newsletter to be written off-site for a while now. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 14:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Actually, I've just have a epiphany.

Everyone liked CASWFN, right? Everyone's going about how the actual CUSWFN is a joke, right? So why not take it all the way? Why not turn the CUSWFN into a genuine humor newsletter? Or at the very least make it very light-hearted and irreverant?

Think about it. As MPK said, most of the 'news' is redundant unless you're some noob who visits two minutes a day. So why not make jokes about it? This isn't the NY Times, for crying out loud. We aren't reporting about the Iraq war or genocide in the Congo. I mean, our most exciting news usually amounts to 'Zomg articlez are being deleted! It may be yours!'

Now, you may be thinking: "That's a dumb idea. You're crap at jokes/satire." Who said I just had to do it? People can write in the various sections. We can turn it into a much larger collaborative effort than two people. Who needs stuffy 'news' about nothing, when we can have something to chuckle about?

Of course, let's see what Drew has in mind for the next issue... Unit 8311^Talk! 16:17, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• This isn't Darthipedia. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:18, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Electing an administrator (a completely official position) is far different than electing the head of CUSWFN (a completely unofficial position), but if it was agreed when CUSWFN was started that the community could elect the head/co-head and CUSWFN would be considered a clan if the commmunity didn't elect the head/co-head, then I stand corrected that this election is indeed valid.

Unit, making CUSWFN a joke - seriously?

I'd like to propose something else - that Unit (if he still wants to do it), Brandon, and I alternate every edition. That way, we could quite possibly have an edition done every week without it being rushed. Fast and good quality. CUSWFN certainly has nothing to lose by having Brandon join, Unit - it has a lot to gain. I know this method would certainly work for me at least for the summer. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 16:36, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Every week? Way too low. We'd be rushing it and it'd continue being low-key. Two weeks at least is more reasonable. Unit 8311^Talk! 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
  • We'd have three weeks to work on each edition. More than enough time. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 16:42, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

There's not enough content to have one every week, even if we had three weeks to work on one. It'd get redundant. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Heh, people in the election back in August were saying "Bi-weekly is better than none". I think since Unit and I started working on CUSWFN, the editions got bigger and therefore took longer. If you look back at Tom's editions, they were much smaller, and were done much faster. For SWF News, no, there may not be enough not many people care about that anyway because they already know about it. It would be possible to have interviews with authors/users every week, as well as Star Wars Media essays and reviews. But if neither of you think it would work then I'd be just as fine with two weeks. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 16:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Two weeks, in my opinion, works fine and is not hard to do. The reason it took you guys so long was not the amount of content. It was procrastination. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Alright. Anyways, would you agree to my proposition, with the difference of it being every two weeks? If so I'll add it to the voting options. Drewton ^{(Drewton's Holocron)} 17:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

I personally don't think it's a good idea right now. You just resigned because, frankly, things weren't going well with you as a co-head. You may not be as busy now, but you really ought to give someone else a chance. I'm not just saying this because, currently, the someone else is me. I'd say this no matter what, but still. I want to try to fix this thing, and with three co-heads things are going to get too complicated and there's going to be too many differences in opinion to effectively run it. As I said above, I only intend to say on until this thing is fixed. Why not put yourself up for election after that? - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 17:52, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just throwing this out there, I'd be willing to fill this position as I have the time and effort and am now more active. In regard to the discussion above, I think that, simply put, whoever heads this things needs to be willing to write it, have enough time to write it, and also be willing to accept help. -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 20:53, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

You're barely active on SWF as it is. That's not exactly a good track record when saying "I have the time and effort". - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 20:59, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

• Whether or not I was active doesn't have to do with whether I'd be willing to put the time and effort into something like this. -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 21:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

To you, but not to a voting community. Previous activity has a lot to do with whether or not someone would vote for a candidate who is running for a position that requires a lot of time commitment. It's hard to take people on their word. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 21:06, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

That is true. -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 22:04, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

"...and I wasn’t able to produce results, but that was a far busier time for me. It’s no longer like that..." -Brandon - Um, lol, isn't that kind of what I said myself? That, despite previous issues, I now have the time to do this? -- Joe Butler ^{(Talk to me)} 00:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• There's a difference between one year ago vs. something that's currently happening. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 01:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• In my opinion, 3 weeks would be great to do one edition, lots of effort and info but I am just a reader/'helper' of the project so it does not really concern me. I would love to see an issue come in 2 weeks though, only if it had a good standard of info. Joe, if you really want to be a co-head, nominate yourself, that's how we do it. Concerning the interviews, Brandon had mentioned to me via the IRC, that the interviews should be done by various people, as long as they explain their plans to the co-head or co-heads. --Arav ^{(Ancient Grove) (Lost Archives)} 09:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• Just want to add, where did Meet a User go? There should be one done for each User of the Month, the ones that have not been done already. People find it interesting reading about peoples SWF journeys. --Arav ^{(Ancient Grove) (Lost Archives)} 09:54, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Doing the Meet a User for the User of the Month is a great idea, Arav, and it makes much more sense than picking random users. - Brandon Rhea ^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:47, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

• I always liked the Author interviews on the fanfic board of TF.Net. Have to have interesting questions though; some generic/reused and some unique to the user's work here at SWF. Having the user of the month being the one interviewed would be great. --Kathkira ^talk 04:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)