District 4- questionable result

[minionofmidas]

It would make the task of the SOFA pretty difficult, though. (Although I guess the thread might be locked at poll closing time, preventing later edits, to give the SOFA the time to count the ballots.)

[Nym90]

It would make the task of the SOFA pretty difficult, though. (Although I guess the thread might be locked at poll closing time, preventing later edits, to give the SOFA the time to count the ballots.)

Yes. As long as the moderator agrees to be online at the exact time that the polls closed, to lock the thread, it would work.

Not to mention that if a ballot was edited after poll closing, we would know it anyway. If a ballot was deleted altogether, however, we wouldn't have legal proof that it was ever there, but we would have clear eyewitness accounts. Also, we would perhaps have, in the case of Demo Hawk's vote, posts from others who quoted his post.

[minionofmidas]

It would make the task of the SOFA pretty difficult, though. (Although I guess the thread might be locked at poll closing time, preventing later edits, to give the SOFA the time to count the ballots.)

Yes. As long as the moderator agrees to be online at the exact time that the polls closed, to lock the thread, it would work.

Not to mention that if a ballot was edited after poll closing, we would know it anyway. If a ballot was deleted altogether, however, we wouldn't have legal proof that it was ever there, but we would have clear eyewitness accounts. Also, we would perhaps have, in the case of Demo Hawk's vote, posts from others who quoted his post.

If tampering with your own ballot were entirely legal, we probably wouldn't have quotes and might not have eyewitnesses.
Of course we would be able to see if a ballot has been edited after polls close, but we might not know what the change was.
If the mod is online at the time, though, there's no problem. Maybe just give Fritz Moderating powers.

[Nym90]

I would support the SOFA being added as a moderator, at least over the course of an election.

As I think about it, I'm undecided on this issue. I can see your point, allowing changing of votes opens up some bad possibilities. However, I feel that something needs to be done on this, still.

My main priorities for fixing this are to ensure that newbies and non-Americans have equal access to the right to vote (let's face it, the requirement to have your state of registration in your signature makes it disproportionately more likely that non-American ballots will be tossed out, as they are almost exclusively the only people who are affected by this requirement).

[Colin]

Wait, wait...is this a joke? I really want to know if this was a planned joke. Democratic Hawk DELETED HIS VOTE and now wants to sue for his voting rights? I have a tough time taking this seriously at this point.

This is becoming crazy. While I could see the evidence when the post was there it is now deleted meaning that all the evidence is gone and thus there is no case. If I remember correctly Fritz did not count the vote because it was under scrutiny. So since the vote has been deleted and the vote was never counted there is now no evidence of any vote by Democratic 'Hawk' except for a few quotes. To say that quotes of that vote have the legal precident to be admitted into a court of law as evidence is completely asinine. Before the deletion of Democratic 'Hawk's' post the AFDNC and DemoHawk had a very good case going for them but now that the evidence has been deleted their is no evidence admissable in a court of law since the legality of using quotes as evidence is highly subject.

[Nym90]

Well, if Fritz was willing to testify that the vote was there at the time the polls closed, I don't see why that wouldn't be enough evidence. Not to mention that many other witnesses can back him up, as well.

This is pretty much the definition of being legalistic and overly technical. You are admitting that the vote actually was there, but saying that we can't prove it. We all know it was there, and we have witnesses. In real world court cases, witnesses are plenty sufficient proof.

If someone sees a murder, but fails to catch it on video tape, is their testimony not accepted in court as valid?

I agree that the quotes are of flimsy legality, especially since they themselves could have been altered, but I highly doubt that anyone will question the eyewitness accounts of Fritz and many others.

[Gustaf]

I think some of teh suggestions here are beginning to give a little too much power to the SOFA, which is a little unpredecented, IMHO.

Actually, if I've understood correctly, I'm the only one with the power to decide elections. As moderator I can edit posts with votes and thus invalidating votes.

[Nym90]

Ha, true enough.

Certainly it would be nearly impossible to not get caught, however, as the voter in question as well as others would call attention to such actions. But's it's crucial to have an unbiased moderator and you fit that description.

[Gustaf]

I could get caught, but what could you do about the actual election? If it was crucial I might be willing to sacrifice my position...

Besides, you couldn't remove me directly, only Dave can do that...mouahaha, I have almost infinite powers!

[7,052,770]

anyway, I'll reiterate that I'm not personally going to challenge the vote.  But if Democratic Hawk wants to, and he's told me he does, I'll support him in it.  But if Demohawk decides not to, or if he does and the SC rules against him, I'll concede.
There's no need for anyone to make any personal attacks on me regarding this.

[12th Doctor]

anyway, I'll reiterate that I'm not personally going to challenge the vote.  But if Democratic Hawk wants to, and he's told me he does, I'll support him in it.  But if Demohawk decides not to, or if he does and the SC rules against him, I'll concede.
There's no need for anyone to make any personal attacks on me regarding this.

Well then let him come and speak for himself.  I haven't heard a peep from him.

[Gustaf]

anyway, I'll reiterate that I'm not personally going to challenge the vote.  But if Democratic Hawk wants to, and he's told me he does, I'll support him in it.  But if Demohawk decides not to, or if he does and the SC rules against him, I'll concede.
There's no need for anyone to make any personal attacks on me regarding this.

There is ALWAYS need for personal attacks, silly!

[12th Doctor]

If he is so angry, why hasn't anyone heard a word from him?  For that matter, why did he delete his vote?

[7,052,770]

If he is so angry, why hasn't anyone heard a word from him?  For that matter, why did he delete his vote?

We have heard a word from him; he posted here asking if he could challenge and ColinW told him absolutely not.
He also PMed and said he wanted to.

[12th Doctor]

If he is so angry, why hasn't anyone heard a word from him?  For that matter, why did he delete his vote?

We have heard a word from him; he posted here asking if he could challenge and ColinW told him absolutely not.
He also PMed and said he wanted to.

I didn't see it.  At anyrate, I already talked to one of the Supreme Court Justices and he is siding with us.  Based on that, I think that it is an uphill battle for you guys.

[Nym90]

I voted for Harry in District 4 (among with all others, being not too clear about the rules)

However, my vote was not counted because I edited it. Can I challenge this in the Supreme Court?

Dave

That's from the official voting booth, page 10.

[Jake]

We need airtight rules saying you may not edit or delete your POST in any election, or it will not count.  That way we won't ever have this problem.

[Sam Spade]

We need airtight rules saying you may not edit or delete your POST in any election, or it will not count.  That way we won't ever have this problem.

I agree wholeheartedly. 

When I read the rules Gabu posted at the beginning of the page, that was what my clear impression of what they meant anyway.

[ilikeverin]

We need airtight rules saying you may not edit or delete your POST in any election, or it will not count. That way we won't ever have this problem.

Rules!  Regulation!  BLAH!

*puts self in the 'no opinion' camp*

[J. J.]

Mr. Fresh, it is quite good to see you back.  :-)