Discuss mailing list

["Daniel Quintiliani" <danq AT runbox.com>]

Hi,

It didn't matter how the votes were counted, it was that I was told "last 
place loses" and then posted the exact language of how things were continued, 
whether it was instant runoff or not. Then Jonah, who asked for permission to 
audit the votes, went ahead to claim the right to count the votes, when Jonah 
does not have that right, with ANYONE, to count the votes for them.

As I said I have no desire to continue the vote, so if we can call this 
"instant runoff" rather than "last place loses" because instant runoff was in 
the title, I'm willing to do yea/nay. I didn't even care that much in the 
first place, as I said.

What I'm not willing to do is allow "Daniel Q." along with personal attacks 
and allegations of fraud be in a name, in fact if I vote in such a proposal 
it would be a possible act of self-incrimination. This is what Jonah intends 
to do, and refuses to take my name and accusations and attacks out of a dunce 
cap troll vote.

Unless someone raises an objection, which I doubt they will, I will not 
submit the "last place loses" vote later tonight.

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 05:42:42 +0000, Philipp Schafft <lion AT lion.leolix.org> 
wrote:

> Good morning,
> 
> On Wed, 2018-08-01 at 00:01 -0400, Daniel Quintiliani wrote:
> > Without getting into the vote counting issues again,
> 
> As things seem to be unclear, IF this should be democratic there is only
> one option: declare the voting invalid and schedule a new one with the
> rules set out clear.
> 
> Everything else would break the democratic at this point.
> 
> As this is a formal error and the options to vote on MUST stay EXACTLY
> the same there is no reason to implement a delay between the votes
> longer than what is necessary to ensure voters aren't confused of the
> process. e.g. one to two weeks.
> 
> 
> > if it will stop Jonah from his dunce cap troll proposal, or encourage
> > him to write something professional which does not personally attack
> > me, accuse me of engaging in unethical and fraudulent activity, and
> > mention me by name, I'd be happy to do a yea/nay. The only reason I
> > did a second proposal was because *other* people thought it was
> > unfair. This is exactly what I was trying to stop. This proposal is
> > really not worth it to me, and had I known it would cause all this
> > trouble, I would have told one of the unhappy people to write it
> > themselves.
> 
> You're now doing it again, getting personal against someone who
> criticized you. As per your own "PROPOSAL" you're not allowed to do
> this. It's hard for people to not consider your values, your being, and
> your actions if you can not stand up to the your own standards. Even
> more if you try to enforce them against others by a policy change.
> 
> 
> I'm looking forward to your reply in wich you will declare this invalid
> and ask for *opinions* on when to reschedule this for. I'm also looking
> forward to read your next call for vote on the same topic.
> 
> With best regards,
> 
> -- 
> Philipp.
>  (Rah of PH2)
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org