@Esben Kran - here is your Puffin!

It'll be revealed when we hit 100 votes, which should be very soon...

Hey Zach- Midas Project should be visible to you now!

We've just resolved some launch issues with the voting portal. The portal was limited to 30 candidates, so a randomised group of organisations was missing for each voter. 
If you've already voted, consider re-voting with a full list of candidates. 
 

I've had a couple of organisations ask me to clarify the Donation Election's vote-brigading rules. Understandably, they want to promote the donation election amongst their supporters, but they aren't sure to what extent this is vote-brigading. The answer is- it depends. 

We want to avoid the Donation Election being a popularity contest/ favouring the candidates with bigger networks. Neither popularity, nor size of network, is perfectly correlated with impact. 

If you'd like to reach out to your audience, feel free, but please don't tell them to vote for you. You can explain the event, and mention that you are a candidate, but we want the votes to inform us of the Forum audience's opinions of marginal impact of money donated to these charities, not to the strength of their networks. 

I'm aware this exortation won't do all the work- we will also be looking into voting patterns, and new accounts (made after October 22, when the election was announced) won't be eligible to vote. 

I've put together a quick initial vote, but I'll vote again at least once before the deadline. I'll go more in depth and closely read the marginal funding posts of the top 5 or so candidates when there are clear front-runners. 

To be fair, this is a linkpost, and the norm is often to use the heading from the piece wherever else it is published. Time magazine's norms are probably a bit more click-bait pro. I'll dm Otto though with some more Forum friendly titles. 

Fair enough! 

I publicly declare that the people with knowledge of the deadline will not vote after the evening of December 2. 

I'll also make sure that we pre-commit internally to a deadline, so that we can't game the results by choosing the cut off. 

My first guess is that if this did happen, we'd keep the votes open slightly longer until there wasn't a tie - this is another benefit of having a secret deadline. I'll check with @Will Howard🔹  when he's online to see if there is already a solution to this. Thanks for pointing it out!

Thanks Jeff!