Mid-Term Discussion Thread

[King]

StevenNick- 4
King- 4
As StevenNick has more first preference votes, King is eliminated.

How is 4 a bigger number than 4?

More FIRST preference votes.

Oh I see

[Fritz]

On a related note, the Midwest Governor's race appears to be tied at 4-4-1.

[Fritz]

With Nclibs vote, Harry's total in all 3 rounds increases to 5 votes.

If I were counting Democratic Hawk's vote, Harry would have 6 votes, resulting in a tie in the final round which Harry would win for having more first preferences.

[Nym90]

Maybe I miscounted. I have D5 as Gabu 7, StevennNick 5 in the runoff.

Gabu votes: Gabu, Alcon, Jesus, Vincent, Phknrocket, Lewis Trondheim, Hughento

StevenNick votes: StevenNick, Wildcard, John Ford, King, PBrunsel.

[Fritz]

Maybe I miscounted. I have D5 as Gabu 7, StevennNick 5 in the runoff.

Gabu votes: Gabu, Alcon, Jesus, Vincent, Phknrocket, Lewis Trondheim, Hughento

StevenNick votes: StevenNick, Wildcard, John Ford, King, PBrunsel.

Lewis Trondheim did not vote for Gabu.

[Nym90]

District 5
Gabu
(write in) Lewis Trondheim
(write in) Wildcard
(write in) Jesus
(write in) King
StevenNick

[Fritz]

You're right, my mistake.  I didn't see Gabu on his ballot.  I was counting that ballot for Lewis Trondheim in round 1, King in round 2, and StevenNick round 3.  It should count foe Gabu in all rounds.  Thanks for pointing out my error.  Even I make mistakes sometimes. 

[The Duke]

pwned.

?


Nym,

I am not the one who brought up ideology.  You said I was unwilling to accept that ideology of voters played the key role, and that i was just mad that people I disagree with could win.  The facts are that it is I, not you, who was supporting people on the opposite side of the spectrum.  You said I was behaving intolerantly of people who disagreed with me.  The facts are that I was backing Verin and StevenNick, who both have a different ideology than me, and none of the four candidates in question are UAC members.  What you said didn't come across wrong, it WAS wrong.

[Nym90]

Ok, here is the list of "quasi-trolls, nobodies, and part timers" who voted for True Democrat and/or Bulldog.

Akno21--clearly doesn't fit the definition.

Lord Traldan--only 44 posts. Ok, I can see a case that could be made.

Danwxman--at 479 posts, I don't think he qualifies.

EarlAW--only 78 posts, but I feel he's a valid contributor.

The Bulldog--Ok, 127 posts, didn't run a very active campaign. Say what you'd like.

True Democrat--143 posts, but has clearly been active in his campaign. You've made it pretty clear that you include him as one of the above, but others have attested that his campaign has been very active.

Defarge--clearly doesn't belong on the list.

NickG--clearly doesn't belong on the list.

Boss Tweed--clearly doesn't belong on the list.

Smash255--572 posts, clearly not a troll, parttimer, or nobody.

IrishDemocrat--I fully agree the scandal was wrong, but no scandalous voters are currently registered. I supported the Fraud bill which would take away the right to vote if someone does this again, but it's not fair to apply it ex post facto.

Julien--new, 76 posts, voted for Supersoulty. I have to assume you don't include him with those above. He's definitely a valuable contributor.

So these are the 12 you've condemned. You have a case for 2, maybe 3 to be included in your definition that you applied to all of them above. Even in their cases, they are newbies who have great potential to be valuable contributors in the future, and I'm not a big fan of attempts to drive people away from the Forum unless there is clear misdoing on their part. I don't condemn any of Supersoulty or Andrew's voters, not even NixonNow.

[KEmperor]

pwned.

?

I think he means "owned."

[Nym90]

pwned.

?


Nym,

I am not the one who brought up ideology. You said I was unwilling to accept that ideology of voters played the key role, and that i was just mad that people I disagree with could win. The facts are that it is I, not you, who was supporting people on the opposite side of the spectrum. You said I was behaving intolerantly of people who disagreed with me. The facts are that I was backing Verin and StevenNick, who both have a different ideology than me, and none of the four candidates in question are UAC members. What you said didn't come across wrong, it WAS wrong.

Well, the way I look at it, I was defending a candidate's supporters who I didn't personally support, Dabeav, as well as those who I do support, while you were defending only those who you personally want to see win. That's what I meant. Yeah, you support candidates of different ideologies, and I, in this particular election, am supporting liberals. I don't see how that's relevant. I'm not only defending liberals; as I said, I'd defend the right to vote of any voter of any ideology under the exact same circumstances. That's why I said you might not believe me, and think that I am biased towards defending only the right of liberals to vote. If that's what you think, there's nothing more that can be said, because you don't trust my motives. Obviously logical discourse breaks down pretty quickly if that's the case.

My point of making the list of the dozen voters in question is to show that while you may have a valid point for a few voters being nobodies (though, as I said, even there I support the right of newbies to get involved in the Fantasy Elections, and encourage their future participation both in the Fantasy Elections and in the Forum as a whole), you are clearly using scorched-earth tactics and condemning everyone; you aren't looking at it logically. I don't think it's fair to make blanket accusations against all voters when the vast majority of the Democratic voters in D1 have proven track records. I feel that you should at least make specific allegations against specific people as to who you consider to be unworthy of the right to vote.

You are tolerant of supporting candidates who have different ideologies. I never said you weren't. But you aren't treating those who choose to vote for candidates that you don't support with much respect.

[Keystone Phil]

Lord Traldan--only 44 posts. Ok, I can see a case that could be made.

We won't see much of him after this election and one vote (as we have seen in other Atlas elections) can mean everything.

[Nym90]

Lord Traldan--only 44 posts. Ok, I can see a case that could be made.

We won't see much of him after this election and one vote (as we have seen in other Atlas elections) can mean everything.

Well, we'll see if he goes away or not. I sincerely hope he stays, obviously it's up to him. I still don't see why you are so sure that he's going to leave. If he does leave, never to be seen again, I'll admit that you were right.

[Keystone Phil]

Lord Traldan--only 44 posts. Ok, I can see a case that could be made.

We won't see much of him after this election and one vote (as we have seen in other Atlas elections) can mean everything.

Well, we'll see if he goes away or not. I sincerely hope he stays, obviously it's up to him. I still don't see why you are so sure that he's going to leave. If he does leave, never to be seen again, I'll admit that you were right.

Before Akno asked him to move here to support IrishDem, we rarely heard from this Lord Tradlan guy. I am sure of these things (as are other members) because I have seen (and unfortunatley lost elections) because of a certain member's ability to get people from off the forum to join, register, vote and leave.

[Nym90]

I see what you are saying. It's all just speculation right now, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out. I agree that getting voters to sign up soley for the purpose of voting, who otherwise contribute nothing to the Forum, be it the regular Forum or the Fantasy Elections Forum, other than their votes, is unethical, though it still isn't illegal. I would not and do not endorse any activity of that type, nor would I tolerate it from any members of my party. I would agree that that violates the spirit if not the letter of the law of the Fantasy Elections and thus would not want any such votes to aid my party.

[Keystone Phil]

I see what you are saying. It's all just speculation right now, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I know it's all speculation but if it wasn't for speculation, GirlGoneWild would be voting in this election.

[Alcon]

I see what you are saying. It's all just speculation right now, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I know it's all speculation but if it wasn't for speculation, GirlGoneWild would be voting in this election.

This is not true. I had made it resoundingly clear that by the end of the day he ended up resigning, unless IrishDemocrat wasn't an ex-Senator and ex-candidate and the public knew why, everyone would know, and no one would end up happy.

And I am very much convinced that Senator Harry completely agreed with me.

[Keystone Phil]

I see what you are saying. It's all just speculation right now, we'll have to wait and see how it plays out.

I know it's all speculation but if it wasn't for speculation, GirlGoneWild would be voting in this election.

This is not true. I had made it resoundingly clear that by the end of the day he ended up resigning, unless IrishDemocrat wasn't an ex-Senator and ex-candidate and the public knew why, everyone would know, and no one would end up happy.

And I am very much convinced that Senator Harry completely agreed with me.

Alcon, from the very beginning I began questioning the voter along with KEmperor and King. At that time it was speculation that the voter's registration was suspicious. My point is that unless someone began speculating somewhere, that member would still have voted and gotten away with one of the most corrupt acts in Atlas politics.

[Nym90]

I would support an IP check of Lord Traldan's posts, if that would allay your concerns. I'm not opposed to doing IP checks of new voters to ensure that it isn't someone double registering.

[Keystone Phil]

I would support an IP check of Lord Traldan's posts, if that would allay your concerns. I'm not opposed to doing IP checks of new voters to ensure that it isn't someone double registering.

Lord Tradlan isn't another member. My point was that his appearance here is pretty much based on one thing: voting.

[Fritz]

IP checks are out of the question, unless you can convince Dave to take over my job.

The user currently named Blunderstorm is actually Beef, who is registered in Wisconsin, not Minnesota.  His vote is invalid, although he will have the asterisk removed from his name in the registration lists because he attempted to vote.

It is not my job to judge the validity of votes in the Regional elections, but his vote there is certainly invalid.  He is not registered in the Midwest region, changing avatar does not change registration.  Even if he did register in Minnesota, he would be doing so during the election. 

[ilikeverin]

*mouth hangs open*

[Akno21]

*mouth hangs open*

You are winning 5-4!

[minionofmidas]

Most would define fair as following the rules. Democrats define fair as "Hey...I didn't win. You cheated!"

Actually, on the Atlas, that's never been yet been said by people without blue Pennsylvania avatars.

Now, as to rules: Most would define fair as following, and making, fair rules.

[Akno21]

Democratic Hawk has voted this way before, we will just count his vote for District 4.

No. That was Zachman (or was it HockeyDude? No, I'm pretty sure it was Zachman) , four months ago. But yes, his vote was counted for Migrendel.

It was HockeyDude, and it counted for me and for Migrendel, since it was that split district election.