I'd just like to point a few things out, some things that I personally believe have made this process (of electing the appeal moderator) unfair.
Firstly, why was the thread left open? Was there any need for discussion to take place? I personally don't think so. All it did was invite certain posters in to try and influence to vote for a certain candidate. I'm in no doubt that this appeal moderator won't be required often, but it's a reasonably serious position, and hence the process of choosing who assumes the position should be serious, itself. The reality is, it hasn't been serious. I really wish we had the data to see when people voted for a particular candidate, because it's quite clear that there was a huge influx of votes for two particular candidates, after some bits if campaigning. Now is that really on?
In my opinion, a better way to have handled this process would have been to invite the candidates to write a short piece on why they should be the appeal moderator. Frivolous applications, yes there were a couple, should have been dismissed without going any further. Then the thread should have been closed, people read what each candidates have to say and consequently vote for the one they value the most, no funny business like we've had.
Responding to Goldenoldie's post about choosing a 'compromise', really? Is that what you would have wanted if you were in the position of either viruzzz or Mark Lenders? I don't think so. There are two ways to sort this out. You either make it fully democratic, whoever gets the most votes wins. Or the moderators and administrators decide. A hybrid between the two, which is what you are more-or-less suggesting, is just not on.
I have no idea whether Federer in 2 meant to cause so much chaos here, but he's ruined this. I highly doubt that viruzzz garnering over forty votes in less than forty-eight hours is at all natural. People should have been left to their own free will to decide.
I personally voted for Mark Lenders, he's the best candidate here. Why did I choose him, you might ask? Well, of course he has more than his fair share of fun in certain threads, but he's one of the most intelligent posters on this forum, he, in my opinion, would have the ability to judge each case that gets brought to him solely on its merits. When the situation calls to be serious, Manuel can be serious, and very helpful. I don't like to criticise other candidates, and this means nothing of my opinion on them as people, I really like all the candidates, and appreciate their posts. However, I feel viruzzz is perhaps a little too 'nice' to do this job. We need someone who can be, when the time and place for it comes, ruthless. I'm very fond of Punky, too, but I have the same reservations about her. You could perhaps say the same thing about me, and I wouldn't disagree with you, *even if, at the same time, I wouldn't want to agree with you!
Just my thoughts, feel free to dismiss them.
Great post, especially the bolded bit. The same happened with goldenoldie, who went from one of the least voted posters to a likely winner with a bit of public campaigning. Federer in 2 ruined this by turning it into a popularity contest, yes, but goldenoldie campaigning for himself isn't any better - only instead of eight screwed candidates we now have 7 - he most definitely would not be a compromise candidate
This post reinforces my belief that if there should be a 'compromise' candidate it should be you