Discuss mailing list

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

There's a huge difference between

DISCUSSION: Daniel Q. is being fraudulent and misleading, so let's nullify 
this vote
PROPOSAL: Let's nullify this vote

-and-

PROPOSAL: Daniel Q. is being fraudulent and misleading, so let's nullify this 
vote

get it?

--

-Dan Q


On Wed, 01 Aug 2018 12:43:51 -0400 (EDT), "Daniel Quintiliani" 
<danq AT runbox.com> wrote:

> 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
> 
> 
> --------
> You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
> You may unsubscribe by emailing discuss-unsubscribe AT lists.opennicproject.org