Jake vs. Q

[Jake]

I challenge the conduct of the December National Symbols Balloting on the grounds that my selections were not included on the ballot when voting opened.

I request an injunction against the further conduct of this referendum and am prepared to make arguments in support of my position.

-Jake

[Emsworth]

A question for Secretary Q: When was this mistake corrected?

The ballot (the first post of the voting booth thread) was last edited at 2:53:17 AM, but I would like to know if there was any previous edit to include Senator Jake's selections.

[Q]

A question for Secretary Q: When was this mistake corrected?

The ballot (the first post of the voting booth thread) was last edited at 2:53:17 AM, but I would like to know if there was any previous edit to include Senator Jake's selections.

The oversight was corrected between 1:20 and 1:30am.  No voters had voted until 1:00am, so voting had been occurring for approximately 20 to 30 minutes before the correction.

[Emsworth]

The oversight was corrected between 1:20 and 1:30am.  No voters had voted until 1:00am, so voting had been occurring for approximately 20 to 30 minutes before the correction.

Thank you.

So, the ballots of four voters were affected by the omission. Isn't the most straightforward solution asking these four people if Senator Jake's choices would have had any effect on their votes? Or is there something wrong with doing this?

(This is not a ruling of any sort, just a question.)

[Jake]

There are many things wrong with it. Would the situation be handled like this if the oversight was a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. I doubt it.

[Joe Republic]

There are many things wrong with it. Would the situation be handled like this if the oversight was a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. I doubt it.

This wasn't a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot.  No need to set a court precedent over a simple mistake.

[Yates]

There are many things wrong with it. Would the situation be handled like this if the oversight was a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. I doubt it.

This wasn't a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot.  No need to set a court precedent over a simple mistake.

I am of the same opinion.

[Everett]

Senator Jake, back off, please.

[ilikeverin]

So, the ballots of four voters were affected by the omission. Isn't the most straightforward solution asking these four people if Senator Jake's choices would have had any effect on their votes? Or is there something wrong with doing this?

Sure, it's the most straightforward, but it's not what would be the 'correct course of action'.

(I don't feel like explaining myself again )

[Jake]

There are many things wrong with it. Would the situation be handled like this if the oversight was a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. I doubt it.

This wasn't a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. 

Was it an election run by the SoFA? If the answer is yes, it should be treated as any other would be.

[Q]

There are many things wrong with it. Would the situation be handled like this if the oversight was a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot. I doubt it.

This wasn't a Senatorial ballot or a Presidential ballot.

Was it an election run by the SoFA? If the answer is yes, it should be treated as any other would be.

If I hadn't taken exception to your manner of addressing me, would you still have pursued this like you have?

[Jake]

In all reality, no. I was just joking, but when you acted like an offended bitch about it, I decided to stick my finger in your eye.

[Q]

In all reality, no. I was just joking, but when you acted like an offended bitch about it, I decided to stick my finger in your eye.

Alright.

I do not believe your phrase in describing me is accurate.  I was doing my job by responding to the issues you raised.

You further degrade yourself with each insult you hurl my way.

[Ebowed]

If I hadn't taken exception to your manner of addressing me, would you still have pursued this like you have?

In all reality, no.

In which case, the case should be dismissed as frivolous.

[Jake]

It really shouldn't. Unless breaking laws is frivolous of course.

[Ebowed]

By abusing the legal system for political revenge, you weaken the integrity of the Court.  I think the whole issue is rather silly; Q made a mistake, corrected it, and life goes on.  It's easy to say "What if he had left a Senatorial candidate off of the ballot," but the fact is that he didn't- only a set of options for a national symbols vote.  It's not really comparable.

I should add that this really was supposed to be voted on in October, and only dragged through to December because apparently the majority of Senators that passed the bill didn't give the Secretary of Forum Affairs their choices for the respective categories.  Dragging it out further because three options out of twenty seven were accidentally left off the ballot, all for something rather minor, just isn't healthy.

[Joe Republic]

If I hadn't taken exception to your manner of addressing me, would you still have pursued this like you have?

In all reality, no. I was just joking, but when you acted like an offended bitch about it, I decided to stick my finger in your eye.

I think this is good enough grounds for dismissing the case.

As Ebowed has already said, using the Court as a means for petty revenge is a total waste of time for everybody concerned.

[Peter]

Okay, two things:

A court case is frivolous if it is substantively incoherent/bullsh**t. The attitude of the filer has no bearing on this.

The petitioner has asked for an injunction that would stop the vote here and now. The last time the Court issued such an injunction, it considered two questions:
1. Would our failing to issue the injunction do any irreparable harm to somebody?
2. Does the suit have a reasonable possibility of success?

Without addressing (1), I cannot see that your case has a reasonable probability of success from what I have seen and read. Therefore your request for an injunction is denied. Feel free to try to convince me otherwise.

As a side note, I hope to publish some basic guidelines for how court cases will be handled by the Court for general reference.

[Q]

As a note, another court case entitled "Jake v. Q" has already taken place.

[Jake]

Stop screwing up then.

J/K BTW

[Peter]

Do you wish to continue with this?

Anyway, this case is not considered urgent if it is continued and will be left on hold until a certification of the vote is completed by the Forum Affairs people.

[Peter]

Since you have declared intent to carry this case on, I would like some sort of timely submission.

Your submission should follow the guidelines laid down on this page. Whilst these guidelines are not yet final, they are good enough for present purposes.

The Forum Affairs Department should stand ready to respond.

[Jake]

It seems that I deleted my arguments. This can be dismissed.

[Peter]

This case is dismissed.

On a further note, the Court is now in recess until Tuesday 3 January. My activity may be liable to be quite low - unless its urgent, wait until the New Year.

[jokerman]

Jake vs. Q?

It's this the preliminary round before February?