This vote is to determine the future of the Affiliation between Nukapedia and the Strategic Nuclear Moose. You may wish to consult This forum to examine the arguments for or against continued affiliation. Please also use that forum for any continued discussion.
There are three possible outcomes from this vote:
- That the affiliation is discontinued for now (until or unless a re-affiliation is agreed).
- That the affiliation is continued, subject to a further review in 12 months time (unless raised by the community earlier).
- That the affiliation is continued indefinitely (essentially permanently, unless raised by the community).
As this is not a binary vote, we will be trialling a preferential voting system that allows you to put the options in your preferred order.
We request that a short (sentence or two) explanation be given for all votes. Agent c (talk) 22:17, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
| ||||
- Please mark your signature and time-stamp in only one of the options below. They do allow you to rank the three options. Any votes in multiple sections will be disregarded entirely. Please ensure you have made an edit to the wiki before the commencement of this vote otherwise your vote will be disregarded.
Option 1
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is Discontinued
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a future review in 12 month
- Most of what is on offer replicates what features we have here already and doesn't yet enhance or extend the user experience here. I think the Moose needs to find its voice, and its core reason to exist, before we can offer unconditional support. Agent c (talk) 22:24, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
Option 2
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is Discontinued
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely
Option 3
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a review in 12 months
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinitely
Option 4
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued subject to a review in 12 months
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is discontinued
Option 5
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinately
Second Preference The Moose affiliation is continued subject to review in 12 months
Option 6
First Preference - The Moose affiliation is continued indefinately
Second Preference - The Moose affiliation is discontinued
Voting Calculation
Votes in the first instance will be taken as being for the first preference listed. If none of the three options has 50% of the votes, those supporting the least popular vote will be distributed to their second preference. This will remove an ambiguity if a true majority is not established by first preference votes.
Why was the vote written like this? It completely disallows neutral votes, which will be necessary for my vote. While I believe the Moose should be continued, I do not want to contribute to whether or not we should continue being re-evaluated, as I believe I have no place in making such a vote. The way this vote is set up, is extremely confusing, and is entirely unprecedented. 
Some Assembly Required! 22:37, September 26, 2014 (UTC)
- It was written like this because there are three possible outcomes, and is to prevent problems that have previously appeared in multiple option votes, ones that have lead to wiki dramas.
- The idea is simple. Look for the option you like the most. Then out of the two that list it as first preference, select which second preference you like the best. If you dont like any of the options enough to vote for em, simply don't vote. 20 Million people in Australia manage to elect parliaments this way, I'm sure we can manage it. Agent c (talk) 22:41, September 26, 2014 (UTC)