 |
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:21
|
|
*Ahem
Cross referenced with those listed in the members thread, as of nye's last update very recently.
EDIT: Sod it.  I didn't think I DPed. If the below post is too wonky to deal with, just download the .txt.
* MrWhereItsAt sighs
 Attachment: members.txt
This has been downloaded 8 time(s).
Last edited by MrWhereItsAt on 22-07-2002 at 14:24
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
Gee, that is a very lagre number of inaligable votes!! It brings into question the very democratic processes of our nation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Sean
Gee, that is a very lagre number of inaligable votes!! It brings into question the very democratic processes of our nation. |
Yes, but you must factor in newbies whom simply forgot to register within the citizen list, etc etc...
However, the number is indeed shocking and we must pass the reforms nesisary to prevent this from happening in the future.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
|
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:21
|
|
*Ahem again
These posters are members, despite Tass listing them as NOT being so
Decimus - no number
Thud - 212
joony
trickey
sabrewolf
mtgillespie - 168
Odin
The citizens above without numbers are reported by nye on the final page of the members list thread .
And the following are NOT members but Tass missed them in his above list (if you can see where they joined please let me know here).
zulu9812
jn_kz
Lawrence of Arabia
Thus 33 ineligible voters, some of whom should know better (ie are not newbies).
Last edited by MrWhereItsAt on 22-07-2002 at 14:53
|
|
| |
|
|
|
disorganizer
|
|
Bavaria (Fanatika)
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
wouldnt it be better to just let markg publish the "normalized" result? meaning the result without the votes not in the members-list?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Comrade Tassadar
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by disorganizer
wouldnt it be better to just let markg publish the "normalized" result? meaning the result without the votes not in the members-list? |
What would be the point of doing such a thing?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
disorganizer
|
|
Bavaria (Fanatika)
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
having the real result. the result without the "invalid" votes.
if its the same, why such a fuzz?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
disorganizer
|
|
Bavaria (Fanatika)
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
the question is: am i a member? i post, i read. i voted (sometimes). but im not registered (well, in fact i even do the census polls here).
and i think maybe im just an example.
since the discussion started, i decided to not vote any more, to not heat up discussion or being victim of an investigation.
(call me foreign worker or alien employee or legal alien or something)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
There is no law in our Code of Laws that states that you have to be a member to vote. Therefore the votes of the non-members are just as valid as of the members. If you want this to change, better make an amendment and get some support for it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
disorganizer
|
|
Bavaria (Fanatika)
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
Epi:
so why were the votes uncovered at all? we knew how many non-members voted cause markg stated the numbers.
so there must have been tries to calculate the real result out of the bogus result. otherwise this effort was useless.
werent there voices stating the election was not valid? now where are they to request the corrected result?
this whole fuzz was useless in my opinion.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-07-2002 13:41
|