SENATE BILL: Double Posting Leniency Resolution (At Final Vote)

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't know, perhaps an incomplete ballot could be edited after the 20 minute mark only in the races that the person did not vote in.

You just want to make my election coverage life harder don't you lol.

If someone undervotes, you could just wait 20 minutes to update the results

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you worded your post as if someone could vote on Friday for one office and then edit their ballot late sunday night to vote for the rest.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I don't know, perhaps an incomplete ballot could be edited after the 20 minute mark only in the races that the person did not vote in.

You just want to make my election coverage life harder don't you lol.

If someone undervotes, you could just wait 20 minutes to update the results

Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but you worded your post as if someone could vote on Friday for one office and then edit their ballot late sunday night to vote for the rest.

That was the wording I read it as also.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

So clarification Devout?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I don't know, perhaps an incomplete ballot could be edited after the 20 minute mark only in the races that the person did not vote in.

If this is going to be put forth as an amendment I'd ask that it be done soon.

[Devout Centrist]

I withdraw my comments on an undervote; I meant that, after 20 minutes, a person could no longer edit their undervote and thus, Wulfric could update results for his election coverage without have to make a change

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

I withdraw my comments on an undervote; I meant that, after 20 minutes, a person could no longer edit their undervote and thus, Wulfric could update results for his election coverage without have to make a change

The 20 minute window is already current law and is not being changed. What Truman was proposing was an unlimited window for undervotes.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I withdraw my comments on an undervote; I meant that, after 20 minutes, a person could no longer edit their undervote and thus, Wulfric could update results for his election coverage without have to make a change

Would this apply to just editing under voters or also casting a second ballot if missed? I would note the latter would be redundant since you can already edit within 20 minutes IIRC.

[Devout Centrist]

I withdraw my comments on an undervote; I meant that, after 20 minutes, a person could no longer edit their undervote and thus, Wulfric could update results for his election coverage without have to make a change

The 20 minute window is already current law and is not being changed. What Truman was proposing was an unlimited window for undervotes.

I think that would be taking it a bit too far. 20 minutes provides plenty of time for a poster to fix a potential undervote

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Are there other issues to be discussed? If not, I posted this upthread:

     

SENATE RESOLUTION

To amend the Constitution to allow for limited Congressional input on vote invalidation, specifically with regards to double posting

Be it Resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Double Posting Leniency Resolution

Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution is Amended as follows:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

This text amends Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution to allow for greater congressional authority into the regulations concerning voter invalidation, particularly with regards to the issue of posting multiple times in the voting booth. The amendment also cleans up some text issues and removes some of the explicit reasons why an amendment may be invalidated contained with the current constitutional text, likewise to facilitate said congressional authority.

1. If the above amendment is ratified, the following legislative fix shall take effect:

Section 1 of the Federal Electoral Act shall be amended as follows:

Section 1: Votes
1. In their vote in the Elections to the House and the Presidency, each voter shall list some, none, or all of the candidates in the voter's order of preference for them.
2. If no numbering of the preferences is stated, then the candidate at the top of the list shall be presumed to be the first preference, the candidate on the second line of the list shall be presumed to be the second preference, and so on.
3. A voter may cast a write-in vote in any election, except a runoff election.
4. In order to write-in a candidate, the voter shall not be required to explicitly specify that their vote is for a write-in candidate.
5. In order for write-in votes for a candidate to qualify as countable votes, the person written-in must formally accept the write-in candidacy before the end of voting in the given election.
6. A voter may vote for "None of the Above" in any election, except a runoff election. Any voter may vote "None of the Above"; any and all lower preferences of the voter shall be ignored.
7. Persons who edit their post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting after twenty minutes shall have their vote counted as void.
      a. All replies shall count as Ballots, even if later deleted, and no voter shall cast multiple ballots in an election, unless:
       I.  Evidence exists that the first ballot submitted by the citizen was deleted by a Moderator or Administrator of the Atlas Forum, or
     II. The second ballot submitted only lists contests not up for election within the thread it was posted on, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted, or
   III. The second ballot submitted is identical to the first ballot and was submitted within five minutes of the first ballot, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted.  
   a-2. In all other cases, including all cases of casting a third or subsequent ballot, the casting of multiple ballots results in the invalidation of all of the user's votes in that election.
    b. Campaigning shall also be prohibited in the voting booth and shall result in the disqualification of their one's vote. Campaigning shall be defined as an act that, to a neutral observer, would be perceived to be an attempt to convince other voters to vote for or against a particular candidate,  ticket, or referendum. The mere act of preferencing/selecting a candidate, ticket, or option shall not be considered campaigning, even if a comically low preference is given.

8. No ballot cast in a script other than the Latin Alphabet shall be counted as valid.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

[AustralianSwingVoter]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

[fhtagn]

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

[Devout Centrist]

I'll sponsor this amendment on Wulfric's behalf:

     

SENATE RESOLUTION

To amend the Constitution to allow for limited Congressional input on vote invalidation, specifically with regards to double posting

Be it Resolved in both Houses of Congress Assembled,

Double Posting Leniency Resolution

Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution is Amended as follows:

The right of citizens of the Republic of Atlasia to vote shall not be denied, except with regard to persons whose accounts is fewer than 168 hours old, as punishment for crimes of which the accused has been duly convicted, or in consequence of failing failure to meet such requirements for frequent posting, or term of residency, or the construction and revision of ballots as may be established by law; but no ballot shall be counted as valid that should list the candidates for office in a script other than the Latin alphabet, or that has been edited more than twenty minutes after its posting in the voting booth. All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote. Congress shall have power to make all needful rules governing the resolution of duplicate ballots and such other controversies as may arise, except as otherwise limited by this Constitution.

This text amends Article I, Section IV of the Fourth Constitution to allow for greater congressional authority into the regulations concerning voter invalidation, particularly with regards to the issue of posting multiple times in the voting booth. The amendment also cleans up some text issues and removes some of the explicit reasons why an amendment may be invalidated contained with the current constitutional text, likewise to facilitate said congressional authority.

1. If the above amendment is ratified, the following legislative fix shall take effect:

Section 1 of the Federal Electoral Act shall be amended as follows:

Section 1: Votes
1. In their vote in the Elections to the House and the Presidency, each voter shall list some, none, or all of the candidates in the voter's order of preference for them.
2. If no numbering of the preferences is stated, then the candidate at the top of the list shall be presumed to be the first preference, the candidate on the second line of the list shall be presumed to be the second preference, and so on.
3. A voter may cast a write-in vote in any election, except a runoff election.
4. In order to write-in a candidate, the voter shall not be required to explicitly specify that their vote is for a write-in candidate.
5. In order for write-in votes for a candidate to qualify as countable votes, the person written-in must formally accept the write-in candidacy before the end of voting in the given election.
6. A voter may vote for "None of the Above" in any election, except a runoff election. Any voter may vote "None of the Above"; any and all lower preferences of the voter shall be ignored.
7. Persons who edit their post in which their vote(s) are contained at the place of voting after twenty minutes shall have their vote counted as void.
      a. All replies shall count as Ballots, even if later deleted, and no voter shall cast multiple ballots in an election, unless:
       I.  Evidence exists that the first ballot submitted by the citizen was deleted by a Moderator or Administrator of the Atlas Forum, or
     II. The second ballot submitted only lists contests not up for election within the thread it was posted on, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted, or
   III. The second ballot submitted is identical to the first ballot and was submitted within five minutes of the first ballot, in which case only the first ballot shall be counted.  
   a-2. In all other cases, including all cases of casting a third or subsequent ballot, the casting of multiple ballots results in the invalidation of all of the user's votes in that election.
    b. Campaigning shall also be prohibited in the voting booth and shall result in the disqualification of their one's vote. Campaigning shall be defined as an act that, to a neutral observer, would be perceived to be an attempt to convince other voters to vote for or against a particular candidate,  ticket, or referendum. The mere act of preferencing/selecting a candidate, ticket, or option shall not be considered campaigning, even if a comically low preference is given.

8. No ballot cast in a script other than the Latin Alphabet shall be counted as valid.

People's Regional Senate
Pending

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

[fhtagn]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

You forget that a vote for Young Texan in the Presidential race was removed by a moderator as well. And said moderator made very clear what his policy on handling those types of ballots will be going forward right after deleting the post.

People on this site know what is and isn't acceptable in the ToS, and the votes that have been removed in the last two elections clearly violated it. The most recent decision was backed by another mod and modadmin, who made their opinions very clear when Lumine was wrongfully attacked. There's no excuse for risking your ballot to make a personal attack (or some other violation of ToS). If I somehow screwed up my ballot IRL, I'm not entitled to ONE retry.There's no reason it should apply differently in game, especially when it's clear what does and does not break the rules.

[Sestak]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

You forget that a vote for Young Texan in the Presidential race was removed by a moderator as well. And said moderator made very clear what his policy on handling those types of ballots will be going forward right after deleting the post.

People on this site know what is and isn't acceptable in the ToS, and the votes that have been removed in the last two elections clearly violated it. The most recent decision was backed by another mod and modadmin, who made their opinions very clear when Lumine was wrongfully attacked. There's no excuse for risking your ballot to make a personal attack (or some other violation of ToS). If I somehow screwed up my ballot IRL, I'm not entitled to ONE retry.There's no reason it should apply differently in game, especially when it's clear what does and does not break the rules.

except this last case showed very clearly that it's not clear or objective as to what is a personal attack - WB did not and still does not believe what he posted comes close to a personal attack.

Plus I'm pretty sure mods in question have explicitly stated they would be supportive of such a re-vote provision.

[fhtagn]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

You forget that a vote for Young Texan in the Presidential race was removed by a moderator as well. And said moderator made very clear what his policy on handling those types of ballots will be going forward right after deleting the post.

People on this site know what is and isn't acceptable in the ToS, and the votes that have been removed in the last two elections clearly violated it. The most recent decision was backed by another mod and modadmin, who made their opinions very clear when Lumine was wrongfully attacked. There's no excuse for risking your ballot to make a personal attack (or some other violation of ToS). If I somehow screwed up my ballot IRL, I'm not entitled to ONE retry.There's no reason it should apply differently in game, especially when it's clear what does and does not break the rules.

except this last case showed very clearly that it's not clear or objective as to what is a personal attack - WB did not and still does not believe what he posted comes close to a personal attack.

Plus I'm pretty sure mods in question have explicitly stated they would be supportive of such a re-vote provision.

Virginia made very clear that to an outside observer, what was posted looked like a personal attack. What WB believes or doesn't believe is irrelevant.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

You forget that a vote for Young Texan in the Presidential race was removed by a moderator as well. And said moderator made very clear what his policy on handling those types of ballots will be going forward right after deleting the post.

People on this site know what is and isn't acceptable in the ToS, and the votes that have been removed in the last two elections clearly violated it. The most recent decision was backed by another mod and modadmin, who made their opinions very clear when Lumine was wrongfully attacked. There's no excuse for risking your ballot to make a personal attack (or some other violation of ToS). If I somehow screwed up my ballot IRL, I'm not entitled to ONE retry.There's no reason it should apply differently in game, especially when it's clear what does and does not break the rules.

Just because the two cases so far have been fairly clear cut doesn't mean that future cases will be similar. When you create a situation where the moderators get to decide whether a ballot counts (which is what we currently have), it is a slippery slope. Right now it is deletions you agree with, and deletions that don't affect the result. Again, in the future, both statements may be false. It is best to take the moderators fully out of the process of actually invalidating the ballot. Here, we have a solution that will 1) allow moderators to do their job (because they can still delete the ballot), 2) avoid a future constitutional crisis where a deletion changes the result of the election (by allowing the user to re-post), and 3) prevent outright trolling (by limiting re-posts to one).

And it's not as if we're a few rogue citizens enacting bad policy, the provision we are enacting has been effectively endorsed by the moderator in question:

What we need to do is get an amendment passed that allows someone to recast their ballot if it has been moderated and deleted. That way we can cope with the moderators enforcing the TOS without it impacting upon the democratic process.

Seriously, this.

And not just federally but also in all 3 regions.

Indeed, I think that would be a necessary solution.

If it would be so so bad to enact this leniency, then why would the moderator in question make a statement implying endorsement of just this sort of leniency?

[fhtagn]

Didn't the supreme court previously rule that a ban on campaigning in the voting booth was unconstitutional?

Indeed , and we are amending the constitution as part of this.

But what's the point? Campaigning is a purely subjective term, and that means that the SoFE is singlehandedly deciding which votes are valid and which are invalid. What benefit is there in banning campaigning in the voting booth?

It is true it was subjective in the past, but if you read the language I wrote out, the definition will be clear going forward.

There's really no need for having in the clause about someone's ballot being deleted by a moderator. We shouldn't be rewarding people for ToS violations.

Also the bit about prohibiting campaigning in the voting booth still has too much potential to be abused by future SoFEs.

There is need when the current law allows moderators to singlehandely remove votes. While you may agree with the recent deletions, there may be days you may not, and days when such removal would change results. I know no one really cares about the WB ballot anymore since YoungTexan won by fourteen percentage points, but whether candidates win or lose elections should not be up to the constantly changing standards of behavior on the site over which we have no oversight, but instead based on who actually got the most votes. And it is hardly some huge amnesty - it is ONE re-try. If you get the ballot deleted a second time, then you're out of luck, because at that point, you clearly know the current standards and are just trolling.

If you have a better definition of campaigning, I'm willing to consider it.

You forget that a vote for Young Texan in the Presidential race was removed by a moderator as well. And said moderator made very clear what his policy on handling those types of ballots will be going forward right after deleting the post.

People on this site know what is and isn't acceptable in the ToS, and the votes that have been removed in the last two elections clearly violated it. The most recent decision was backed by another mod and modadmin, who made their opinions very clear when Lumine was wrongfully attacked. There's no excuse for risking your ballot to make a personal attack (or some other violation of ToS). If I somehow screwed up my ballot IRL, I'm not entitled to ONE retry.There's no reason it should apply differently in game, especially when it's clear what does and does not break the rules.

Just because the two cases so far have been fairly clear cut doesn't mean that future cases will be similar. When you create a situation where the moderators get to decide whether a ballot counts (which is what we currently have), it is a slippery slope. Right now it is deletions you agree with, and deletions that don't affect the result. Again, in the future, both statements may be false. It is best to take the moderators fully out of the process of actually invalidating the ballot. Here, we have a solution that will 1) allow moderators to do their job (because they can still delete the ballot), 2) avoid a future constitutional crisis where a deletion changes the result of the election (by allowing the user to re-post), and 3) prevent outright trolling (by limiting re-posts to one).

And it's not as if we're a few rogue citizens enacting bad policy, the provision we are enacting has been effectively endorsed by the moderator in question:

What we need to do is get an amendment passed that allows someone to recast their ballot if it has been moderated and deleted. That way we can cope with the moderators enforcing the TOS without it impacting upon the democratic process.

Seriously, this.

And not just federally but also in all 3 regions.

Indeed, I think that would be a necessary solution.

If it would be so so bad to enact this leniency, then why would the moderator in question make a statement implying endorsement of just this sort of leniency?

There shouldn't be a leniency for something that obviously violates ToS.

Someone doesn't want to risk their ballot getting deleted for personal attack? Then vote in a manner that we know is acceptable and not at risk of getting deleted by the mods. If it alters the result of the election, it's not the mods you should be mad at, it's the person who chose not to take their ballot seriously.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

Glad to know that Fhtagn prefers our elections be decided not by the voters but by the moderators. I'd imagine you'd be singing a different tune if say, a YT ballot had been deleted and it flipped the election in favor of HCP (speaking hypothetically), but in any case, thanks for the attack ad fodder.

[fhtagn]

Please do yourself a favor and learn to read, Wulfric. I literally defended a YT ballot that was deleted in my original response. You made very clear in Lumine's thread your position on this is 100% partisan.

Once again, if someone's ballot is deleted because they violated ToS, we should not be rewarding them for doing something they know is wrong. It's really not hard to take an extra minute to look over it and make sure what you posted has no possibility of being infracted. And if you're still in doubt, just lay out your prefs like everyone else and you won't have to worry about it.

Let's take a look at how you approached ASV's ballot deletion vs WB's

When ASV's ballot was deleted:

While I have strong ideological disagreements with the user that was insulted, the form of attack used was nonsensical, inappropriate, and patently childish, especially considering it was used in the voting booth. This is not acceptable - whether it comes from the left or the right. We are a better game than this.

When WB's ballot was deleted:

Bumping this to state it once again, please stop misusing the Voting Booth to post personal attacks or something of the kind.

I really don't like having to take action there, but I think made it fairly clear that it is clearly inappropriate, and what the result will be.

If this decides the election, we'll see you in court for your fraud.

Let moderators doing their job. Atlas issues > Atlasia issues.

To a point yes, but when Lumine is deciding who wins an election, it crosses a line and should lead to in game consequences.

If anyone is singing a different tune, it's obviously you.

but in any case, thanks for the attack ad fodder.

[Attorney General, LGC Speaker, and Former PPT Dwarven Dragon]

 

defended a YT ballot that was deleted

And I'd argue that you wouldn't be defending such deletion if it had changed the result.

[fhtagn]

defended a YT ballot that was deleted

And I'd argue that you wouldn't be defending such deletion if it had changed the result.

I'd still be defending it, because it was a clear violation of ToS. When it happened, unlike you, I didn't direct unnecessary attacks towards Lumine. I simply asked why ballot deletion vs an edit, and he laid out how he would handle these types of situations. With that in mind, if it had changed the election results, I wouldn't be mad at Lumine for deleting the ballot, I'd be mad at ASV for violating ToS, because that is what any reasonable person would do.

In fact, 3 current Senators defended the idea that the ONLY thing that should be going on in the voting booth should be actual votes. 2 of them are current Labor Senators. I'd like to hear from them on whether or not they still hold that position, and why or why not.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

For years I have said that meme or troll voting as it was called before the word meme came about, should be avoided because you are indeed playing with fire if not with Altasian law than with TOS. Your vote is your voice and if you opt to express your voice in that manner you are free to do so, but it runs the risk of spoiling your ballot.