|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 11:57:08 GMT -6
I appreciate the change in tone of your last post. But that's the thing!!! I was NOT being agressive in my first post either! At least, if I was perceived as being agressive, it was entirely involuntary in my part! In forums it's hard to guess the tone of a person, but my desired tone was NOT condescending, it was NOT agreessive toward you, and it was NOT defensive. I am not disputing that you perceived it at much, but I certainly didn't intend them! 2016-12-01 03:49:57 So far, I am in 100% agreement with you. His vote IS a public record, and it makes NO difference legally speaking as only private votes made using the database can be excluded from a review (and only if the form is pre-approved). No objection there. I will NOT however give his PSC and IP Address, as this is private information, but I hope you understand that... The content of the ballot itself is public. Full agreement there too! I never tried to hide anything about his ballot, or to imply that I wanted to. And this is where we disagree. Let me try to change the conflict by using 5 different words. 1 )There are public votes. These are votes either made on Witt, or made in private (such as in the database or by email) with the intent to make the vote public. This is Trotxa'c case, AND Hool's case. 2 ) There are private votes. There are votes made in the database or by email (or by voicemail) which were made with the request to keep them private. This is the case for my own vote. 3 ) There are Witt Votes, these are votes made publicly on Wittenberg. These votes are ALWAYS recorded as being public, and are the ONLY case where the PSC is not needed. This is Hool's case, BUT NOT Trotxa's case. 4 ) There are non-witt votes manually entered by the SoS. This includes Jonathan Kelley's vote by email, and Cami's vote by phone. Jonathan opted to make his vote public, Cami didn't specify, so I kept it private by default. 5 ) There are automated votes made using the form. This includes my vote, my daughter's vote, my wife's vote. # 1 and #2 are not voting method, just a status. #5 doesn't allow the option to vote for a party in the Senate, only for a person. Only #3 and 4 can vote for a party in the Senate. For this election, no one did, so I didn't have to do a ruling. Is that clearer? I hope it is...
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:08:20 GMT -6
I appreciate the change in tone of your last post. But that's the thing!!! I was NOT being agressive in my first post either! At least, if I was perceived as being agressive, it was entirely involuntary in my part! In forums it's hard to guess the tone of a person, but my desired tone was NOT condescending, it was NOT agreessive toward you, and it was NOT defensive. I am not disputing that you perceived it at much, but I certainly didn't intend them! Impact versus intent. Look into it. Your tone was aggressive and your post was condescending. I didn't need you to "explain" to me how it works, when that explanation supported my point. I'll let the EC confirm that. I'm making note of this statement, " t makes NO difference legally speaking."
[/quote] Nobody is asking for that. Only that the information that would be available had a public vote been made on the forum be equally available when done via the database but marked public. You're adding labels where they don't need to be. There are either public or private votes. If a vote is public, then all aspects of that vote is public (of course IP and PSC would not be included as those are not provided on the Witt ballot). But, as you stated, there is no legal basis for the distinction you are making. What you're arguing is that method of voting implies how much information should be given to the public when addressing public votes. There's no need for this argument. The same information I can see on a that is made via Witt should be available from a vote that was made by email, on the database, via voicemail, or whatever method you can construct, and that includes the date and time and what was entered for specific fields. I can't fathom why you continue to invent new categories where there needn't be.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 12:21:54 GMT -6
I guess we still don't understand each other.
I am not saying that Trotxa's vote is not public.
I am saying that because of the way he voted, he couldn't have voted for the RUMP in the Senate, only for a specific person. I am not disputing that his ballot isn't public, just that he didn't vote RUMP, he voted specically for a candidate.
I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing. I was only trying to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:28:32 GMT -6
Putting everything else aside, you don't think that it's an issue that voting with one method gives you more options than voting with another method?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 12:32:15 GMT -6
Putting everything else aside, you don't think that it's an issue that voting with one method gives you more options than voting with another method? Oh, I totally think it IS a problem, I am 100% against voting for a party in the Senate elections! Senators represent provinces not parties. I proposed a law to allow me to only accept the citizen in an online form and the law was approved, but sadly, we didn't fix the public vote on Witt yet. Perhaps in the next Cosa.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 12:57:09 GMT -6
Let us also be clear, "I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing." is not an apology. It's assholish.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 13:08:12 GMT -6
Let us also be clear, "I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing." is not an apology. It's assholish. WHAT???? Ok, I am dropping this. I really, really don't understand how my post was being condecending. This issue is complex, I offered an explanation to clarify the situation which a lot of people just don't understand (this isn't the first time this subject is raised and I have to explain it). If you have intimate knowledge on this process, awesome! Sorry for explaining, but I spent some time explaining this exact situation to party leaders this election and for the previous 3, so I explained because I don't assume everyone does. That's not being condecending, that's trying to be clear and inform. You consider my posts as acting like an asshole, when I am trying to remain level-headed and calm when you are almost accusing me of comitting election fraud. You claim today that all that you want is for the process to be transparent and validated. We already have the EC for that. But instead, you directly attacked the integrity of the process, and instead of calling you out on it, I tried to calmy explain the process. You decided that I was being an asshole by explaining something to you that you believe you fully understand, and yet, you still dispute the results and if you did fully understand the process, you would have seen the little chances of problems remained. Yes, I missed a single senate vote. I missed one last election too. I am only human, and this ca only occur for manual votes such as Wittenberg votes. This is why we have the EC. Yet, In all of the cases, it was caught and fixed BEFORE the EC began its work, including this time and the previous time. You did not question the process, you almost flatly attacked it, immediatly assuming that I counted for your opponent votes that occured before he was endorsed by the RUMP and almost claming I had ilegally assigned those votes to him. When I explained it wasn'T the case, you called me condecending when I was only trying to explain to you the error in your judgement. Heck, when I pasted from the database the exact timestamp of a vote, you questioned my truthfulness saying it was up to the EC to validate that!!! And I am the asshole in this? I am sorry for you. You seem to have a lot of misplaced anger toward me, and perhaps others. I wish you calm and quiet, I wish you peace. you have decided that everything I say, is as an asshole and I am sorry for that. I never mean to be condecending.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 13:33:47 GMT -6
Let us also be clear, "I am sorry if you think that explaining the situation makes you think I was being condecensing." is not an apology. It's assholish. WHAT? What is unclear? Then stop. But don't expect to say you're dropping something and then provide some tedious screed without a response. But it was unnecessary. Had you read my post closer, you would have understood I wasn't questioning anything your scenario brought up. Instead, it came off as, "oh gee, this again, okay, let me explain it to you." Irrelevant. Again, it was unnecessary. Your explanation actually supported what I was saying. Your explanation tried to say, "you're wrong; let me explain it to you" when you didn't even bother to consider what the issue is. I didn't need you to explain the process to me; I needed you to answer my questions. Again, read my post closer. I didn't say you were acting like an asshole, I said your "apology" was assholish. I questioned the integrity of the process. Which is my right to do. Call me out on it. "V QUESTIONED THE INTEGRITY OF THE PROCESS!" Yes, great job! Because you got nothing wrong in this election. Nope, let's just ignore the stuff you did. (That's sarcasm by the way) <- That was me being condescending <-That was me being condescending about being condescending, how meta. Again, I said your apology was assholish. You're not being an asshole right now, you're just being daft. That's not really relevant. After I protested, you corrected it. Good for you! But this entire disagreement is about you not answering the questions I posed, and getting insulted because I called you out for your condescending non-response. Okay, Talossa is a country that when you question the process, you're attacking it. Got it. We've gone over this. I had already publicly stated I wasn't putting much stock into what you say. Why was this a shock? Cool story, bro. Nice try at gaslighting. Let's just note that you've taken a cue out of Mr. Trump's handbook and decided that those who question you are attacking you. Yeah, no, that's not what happened. But I get it - you're infallible; you can't be questioned. On that note, Mr. Trump, go ahead and respond and I'll read it and laugh. But I'm done with this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 13:43:38 GMT -6
I am trying to answer again the questions on the original post:
That's not a question, so far.
That's the introduction,
Yes, that was a data-entry error. I fixed it.
Actually, I received the notification on November 14th 2016 by private message. I do not know when they announced it publicly.
Yeap, that's the proper date!
Yes, they were.
I can answer for both public AND private ballots. All votes for him were explicitly for him.
No votes were reassigned, period. Not a single time under my tenure as SoS.
No, there weren't any for the whole election, for any party.
That's a question I cannot answer, as I am not an attorney, and it didn't present itself yet.
No, that's actually illegal. Only the first vote counts.
Sorry, that's what I tried to answer. I guess I failed until now.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 2, 2016 13:57:56 GMT -6
Actually, I received the notification on November 14th 2016 by private message. I do not know when they announced it publicly. To clarify, the 14th is when I notified you of the RUMP's initial endorsement of Sir Trotxâ. Sir Trotxâ did not withdraw on the 17th, he withdrew on the 25th (which, as you note, is the same day I notified you of the RUMP's new endorsement of S:reu Grischun).
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 13:59:20 GMT -6
Actually, I received the notification on November 14th 2016 by private message. I do not know when they announced it publicly. To clarify, the 14th is when I notified you of the RUMP's initial endorsement of Sir Trotxâ. Sir Trotxâ did not withdraw on the 17th, he withdrew on the 25th (which, as you note, is the same day I notified you of the RUMP's new endorsement of S:reu Grischun). Oh, right, sorry.,, I misread that one!
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 14:05:48 GMT -6
Was that so hard?
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 14:43:26 GMT -6
When a person doesn't answer properly to your questions, you have two choices: Consider they didn't understand them properly and repeat them. Or... consider they attacked you, are being condescending and put them on the defensive. You chose the second option, so instead of rereading your questions you kept pointing me to my own answers. You put the focus on my answers and my behavior instead of on your own questions. You never thought it possible that I might have misunderstood your questions.
|
|
|
Post by Viteu Marcianüs on Dec 2, 2016 15:12:05 GMT -6
To clarify, I did not mean Hool, I meant Aladna la Mha-Coca (you'll excuse the confusion). You will cease your condescension; your little scenario didn't really explain anything, as it does not much differ from the point I'm making. My question remains - of the public votes, on which date were they received and did they explicitly state Grischun? Of the private votes, the EC will need to confirm that they are appropriate. And I'm not apologizing for this, but the fact that you concede that there is a significant difference between private and public votes (i.e., you can vote party in one but not the other), then I'm not putting much stock into your other claims. Emphasis added to original.
|
|
|
Post by Marti-Pair Furxheir S.H. on Dec 2, 2016 15:48:59 GMT -6
This might take some time, and I am about to step out. I am not ignoring your demand for information, so please, please, bump this when you read it so I see it tomorrow morning and answer.
BUT, all of the votes for Grishum explicitly mentionned him. I just need to retrieve the dates now.
|
|