Total posts: 6,549
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
False. Your first post has you not condemning claiming at all. In your second post after two players claimed, you just said you felt like pressure on Austin was too low for a claim. You said nothing against claiming in general until 3rd out.
I never said that my first post condemned claiming. I recognized that GP always plays that way. That's it. My second post was a list of reads, including statements about how two players claimed. I pushed back on making claims within that post.
I didnt find you at fault for not being active. That was not the accusation at all.
The comparison you're making between this game and the previous one doesn't make sense. In the Arkhamafia game, I made several posts in a row that didn't push back on a widening push to have players claim. In this one, I made a post after there was a new claim on the table and specifically called him out for making the claim. You didn't like that it took me that long to do it, but it was my second post, which was a matter of availability rather than selective timing. So yes, it does seem like you're calling me out for when and how long I was active.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
re you talking about this:Arkhamafia: Mafia. Whiteflame was calm about the early claims, but did discourage further claiming. He did wait a bit even after there were two full claims.Seems like your scum play is consistent with this game, where you waited for 3 outs to say something.
Yes, the second time I was able to post in this game was also the first time I said anything against claiming. The first time I posted was after only GP made a claim, which he does every game. The second time I posted included quite a bit of specifics about my not liking people making further claims, which several people had done by then. Didn't know you were going to find me at fault for not being active on here throughout my workday, but I guess that is akin to a game where I had made 8 posts before I said anything about claims, sure.
Created:
Posted in:
It's ridiculous how little attention WyIted has gotten for that Hitler claim. Seriously? Secret Hitler is a completely different game.
Created:
Posted in:
Well, there's now 4 votes on me. I still think it's a mistake to out this much information in DP1, but if you're going to push me into it, then I have little choice.
I'm Phil Scott, governor of Vermont. Pie emphasized that he sees me as a RINO who spends too much time criticizing Donald Trump instead of seeing to my state's needs.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is not what I have said. I said his choices were more likely to be right than the choices of others who could be scums. This is not right choices vs. wrong choices. This is about which choice is more likely to be correct.
And what has he said that makes you think that I'm most likely scum? You said "I am trusting RM on his claim of you because he is most likely town." That puts a lot of emphasis on your decision to support him because of his affiliation.
I agree that town players can make bad decisions for town. However, scum players will make far worse decisions for town if trust is placed in them.
So there's no one else you see as likely town? And, since you claim to be town, you're making the decision to rely on another town's reads instead of your own?
Is not true. He posted one link that showed you to be concerned about outs right at the start. Not exactly consistent with this game where you didnt care until 3 outs. Hence, the evidence.
He posted a whole set of games where he independently analyzed my behavior in response to similar scenarios. Guess you didn't see that.
Is very strange statement. I believe you need to respond to that2 link too. If you are not responding to accusations supported by evidence, I might think that you have no response.
...You serious? I've responded several times. RM has repeated the same argument. I've responded to That2 multiple times as well. If there's something I missed that's new, link it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is not true. It was already explained that I am trusting RM on his claim of you because he is most likely town. Plus, some evidence was presented. You didnt exactly address the "wf town different from wf scum" argument.
That's a baffling response.
Just because RM is town doesn't mean he's made the right choices. I've already pointed that out to That2, so I'll point it out directly to you as well. This is also not the first time RM has picked up on something that he thinks is a clear behavioral scum tell only to be proven wrong. SirAnon made a whole post looking into my behavior in previous games and how I've responded to efforts to get more information on claims. They've all been consistent, whether I'm town or scum. As far as I can tell, RM has a very strong gut read that he hasn't supported with any evidence of my past play. I don't see a need to continually respond to that with the same information.
Created:
Posted in:
I'll leave these in order (top to bottom of each section, minus the nulls which are all just null) of how strong my read is
Town:
RM - Frankly, at this point, he should be everyone's most obvious townread. Maybe he is pulling some massive gambit, but I can't fathom Pie making the game so unbalanced by making it nearly impossible to lynch a member of the scum team. Behaviorally, he's all town.
GP - I still think he's likely town. My experience with GP is that he tends to be more active when he's scum, and this kind of passivity fits with basically every game I've seen from him as town.
Austin - The lack of activity hasn't been good, but he at least provided a reason for it. I previously explained that his decision to pretty much outright claim his governor seemed noob town to me. That view hasn't changed.
Null:
SirAnon - I still don't like his early decisions in this DP, but everything I've seen since has looked like classic town behavior from him. I chalk that up to the strange issues he was dealing with trying to log in.
SupaDudz - Too little in the way of posting to say much on him. His reads were pretty thorough and saying that his role is confirmable at least leaves me wanting to test it by giving him an NP to do it, but I haven't seen much in the way of interaction from him beyond a response to RM and a couple to That2. I'd need to see more to work with there.
badger - He's bored, he's asking questions on reads and he's complaining about how the game's being played. I think he'd be more aggressive as scum, but given the limited contributions, I'm going to leave him at null for now.
Barney - He's gotten more involved and has some decent reads. There was some back-and-forth about his voting and unvoting RM, though given that there are legitimate concerns about scum having a role that allows them to cast multiple votes, I get where he was coming from. Nothing's really screamed town or scum for me.
Scum:
WyIted - Pretty straightforward. His behavior in general has always been a bit off, so it's hard for me to make heads or tails of it, but the claim just looks like nonsense.
BK - Still looks scummy to me, but this is my first game playing with him and I'm still trying to gauge his behavior. I've given my thoughts previously on him and the way that he chose to claim, but there's some sheeping of RM going on as well that elevates him above a slight scum read.
That2User - My suspicions have dulled a bit, but the continued sheeping of RM's votes makes me think That2 might be buddying a bit, especially since there seems to be a lot of hedging around those voting decisions when confronted about them. Generally, That2's behavior has looked pretty townie, but her choice to flit back and forth between making decisions based on her own reads and based on RM's rub me the wrong way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@badger
Yes. I've been writing up my reads, so I'll post them in a bit.
Created:
Posted in:
Yeah... I really don't buy this claim at all. Even if I assume there's a Hitler in this game, making Inslee that character doesn't make sense. Pie may have a problem with Democrats, but if he's going to pick one to make the Hitler (which looks like the strangest role I've ever seen), it's not going to be Inslee.
VTL WyIted
Created:
Posted in:
Unvote
Yep, there's more of that heads-up behavior from RM - sheep me or I tunnel you.
Created:
Posted in:
I just caught up and... wow, Hitler, really? It honestly sounds made up. Never heard of that role, the weirdly specific protective effect is also new to me (and just generally seems to assume that a lot of Democrats have visiting roles for some reason?) and the justification seems ridiculous, though I doubt many of the justifications are straightforward.
I'll need to go back and analyze his behavior, but this changes things. Also, please, no one else reveal anything about your claims. We already have 2 full claims on the board and a couple of character claims besides.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Going through the list and explaining why each of them seems nonsensical would likely lead nowhere fast. The fact that you have these reasons gives me more basis for believing you're town (not the first time you've done this kind of misdirection), and frankly, I don't buy that this role (if we can confirm it) would be scummy in the first place - making it that difficult to lynch scum seems pretty unbalanced. So, might as well test it.
VTL RM
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Wait. At the start of the DP, you said this:
I am a role that can confirm itself if/when needed. I could be scumsided in the eyes of others. I am outing this because there is no reason not to as far as I see.I would prefer you forcing me to confirm myself by dp3. I will clarify nothing further.
So, please explain this to me: why didn't you want to out yourself from the start so that you could immediately confirm your role, and why would you specify that you'd confirm yourself by DP3, specifically, when your role is confirmable now?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Good point, RM's perception alone isn't enough to vote you, going with someone I believe as town isn't an optimal way to play but I'm willing to believe RM since he usually reads right, anyone you willing to vote in now?
If I had to choose at this point, it would be between Best.Korea and badger. I'd favor the former because badger at least promises later activity and I hate to make decisions based largely on inactivity. The early choices Best.Korea made and the decision to soft-claim then just outright claim his character didn't make sense from any perspective. It struck me as opportunistic, using the fact that someone else had mentioned Whitmer to "confirm" himself.
I highly dislike the flow of this game, we need change it, focusing in on substantive things, but I'm not seeing anything substantialHow do you feel about WyIted accusing RM of backtracking/lying? WyIted is saying RM is setting up to backtrack
I'm not a fan, either. I think the conflict between WyIted and RM looks mainly like a clash of styles. It's not quite as bombastic as Pie/RM fights were in previous games, but it's similar in that there's a mutual accusation and both sides are basing their views off of weak theories. If RM backtracks, we can talk about it then.
To me it looks like he isn't going all in against you, only making it look that wayI've seen RM go fully all in against you in DP2 in MMA mafia, this isn't going fully all in, I saw absolute conviction I don't see in this game
To his credit, he's discussing other people in this game while keeping his focus squarely on me. That's improvement. He's considering other votes, even if he's got a clear preference. That being said, I think he's still trying to limit options as much as possible so that he gets his way, he's just taking a different track to get there.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
Like I said, I think that's about a desire to get a heads-up vote between him and someone else. At this point, he seems driven to make it between me and him, but he keeps trying to do it with other people one at a time for the same reason. Like I said, though, the main thing that doesn't make sense with your version of it is his earlier statement about confirming himself by DP3. If he really could do something, he could potentially confirm his role immediately, or at least by the end of this DP. Not sure why he'd give that timeframe if that was the case.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
I still just don't buy it. I get your point that RM has been trying to push for votes against him, but that honestly seems more driven by his usual style of trying to push us all to focus on his strongest scum read. Maybe he's trying to bide out an OMGUS response so that he can make a better case, or maybe he's just trying to get the same kind of response he got out of That2 and make it a "it's him or me" situation in much clearer terms by reducing the number of wagons in play. If he is trying something weird with the voting, then his point that he will confirm himself before DP3 doesn't make a whole lot of sense, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
wf is playing dispassionately, not disengaged, he is engaged, I need to go back and read what he says in detail, RM is saying this dispassionate play paints him as mafia, wanting the 1 v. 1, in the MMA game that wf was scum he actively wanted me to full claim, joining in with someone else in wanting thisGoing off RM's perception alone wf leans scum, wf is not freaking out with mass claims as RM's perception of town wf would do, he's also not actively pushing anyone to full claim like he did me when scum, to me wf is playing wf slight scum/neutral, I'd even say wf is playing as he usually does, least what I perceive to be wf's usual play
I'm honestly just not interested in engaging with this tunnel vision RM at this stage, so I haven't been as involved when he's the one dominating the posts. We've discussed his sussing of me, he's made very clear where he stands, and as far as I can tell, no one agrees with his perspective of my past play, which is the entire basis on which his case against me rests. There are plenty of past games where he sussed me early because of some perception of how I usually play and my tone in a given post. He straight up admitted that he doesn't know how to read me in DP1 back in post #34.
0nly town I'm seeing is RM, since he wants wf vs. RM I'm voting inwith himVTL whiteflame
I understand that tactic, but just believing that RM is town doesn't mean his VTL makes sense. If you don't agree with his logic, don't just parrot him because you think he's town. I think he's likely town, but that doesn't mean I'm voting for either you or WyIted by default.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
my read was that he would have behaved differentlyAnd to support that you say:he wouldn't have effectively given his actual claimThis sounds like a terribly unclear assumption.His claim was not effectively given by his own words. He said it was "not easy to decode", only to have it decoded few comments later.
Yes, it seems like he actually thought that he was soft-claiming in a way that would avoid giving away too much information. If he was in a chat with two other scum, I don't think that either of his teammates would have advised him to do that. It's a weird move to make as scum because, despite what he said about not giving away his character claim completely, he did anyway.
At this point, I don't know what you're looking for from me. You said you understood my justification just a few posts ago, you just don't like that I phrased it more vaguely initially. Seems like you have a problem with gut reads in general, so maybe that's the problem, but that isn't going to change and honestly, I'm not sure why you're focusing on me if that's the case. I've given more justification for my reads than most anyone in this DP.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Is a correct statement.Your point was: "slight town read", which you supported by saying "he is anti-town, but its okay" and "he didnt react as scum that one time".To me, it seems like you tried to make up any reason possible to have this "slight town read".Your first reason doesnt even support your read, and your second reason is based on an unlikely assumption of "scum would fail in that reaction".
You keep quoting me as though I said those things precisely. I did say "slight town read," but the rest is inaccurate and excludes context.
I said that he shouldn't have responded the way he did, but that my read was that he would have behaved differently if he was scum. The context for that view is that he wouldn't have effectively given his actual claim if he was scum. It's fine if you don't agree with that, it's a gut read, as most reads are at this stage, and it's based on limited information, which is all we have. There's a reason that my reads are slight and not hard reads. I'll note that, despite your summaries, you were largely unwilling to commit to any reads, giving vague perspectives on a handful of people without any town reads. It's fine if you don't like my perspectives, but a lack of any analysis on half the people in this game isn't an improvement.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Being anti-town doesnt make someone town.
I agree with SirAnon's point. There are lots of ways to be anti-town and some of them will come off as scummy. This didn't.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@SirAnonymous
I see no downside to claiming gender and party. The only thing that helps mafia is information that would allow them to guess roles, and I can't see how gender and party would help them do that.My governor is a Republican woman.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but given that there's a theme split and that we know scum only has access to a single fake claim or fake role, I think giving them more information affords them more opportunities to avoid detection. I have a bigger problem with just mass claiming all of our characters to get information, but even this claim narrows the pool of possible options for your character down to 4.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Whiteflame seems to be giving confusing explanations.He says "Austin's soft claim was not a town indication", then adds "Austin's decision to do soft claim was a town indication".I am not a fan of these mixed messages, and I am not trusting anyone's "inner feeling" on the matter.
I thought I was pretty clear about my thoughts on Austin (only the latter of those pseudoquotes is a somewhat accurate representation of what I said). I view the decision to effectively claim his governor as anti-town, mainly because it helps scum more than it does town. Being anti-town doesn't make someone scum, and I don't think scum would behave as he has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
He is trying to get some votes on him for some role activated by someone voting him somehow or some other such nonsense. Maybe he can silence people voting on him or steal their vote or something
I don't buy it. This seems like pretty normal RM behavior to me, shifting his tunnel vision around until he finds someone he wants to focus on and then making it a "it's me or him" situation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
It was already pointed out that there is most probably my governor in the game. I doubt that any scum would dare to claim Whitmer either way. Too risky for them, due to high probability of town already having that governor.
I disagree, but in general, I think it's a bad idea to make it easier for scum to fake claim, even if it seems obvious that it's a claim they wouldn't risk.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I guess you're entitled to your wrong opinion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Yeah... I'm not doing this with you. Mad and panicky are not traits I think most other players would agree I display in DP1, nor is randomly pressuring people, especially when my own activity is low. Good to see that tunnel vision RM is back.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Correct me if I am wrong, but doesnt the town benefit from having more info when there is a theme?
Sometimes, though theme analysis is often frustrating and leads down numerous paths that go nowhere. Scum also benefits from having more info, particularly if it helps them make fake claims. We know that, at most, they have one fake claim. Narrowing down options for other fake claims makes it that much more difficult to determine that they're scum.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Exactly and you oppose it hard as Town, here you are chill and didnt even notice we worked out Austin is the female governor of oregon.You. Are. Scum. Period. You vs me lets go end of discussion.
I saw that several people have claimed that Austin is the governor of Oregon. I also saw that he posted in response saying that he wouldn't confirm or deny it. So, we're functioning under the assumption that his claim is what you worked out. That doesn't mean he claimed a female governor.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Best.Korea just claimed Whitmer pretty much unprompted too, this looks like a noob town play to me instead of slight scum
It does seem like a strange move for scum, I'll grant you that, though given that they may have a fake claim, it's not out of the realm of possibility.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
I feel like it could help the town.
And how is that, exactly?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
Vtl whiteflameWhuteflame never ever ever ever ever is calm with mass outs DP1 as Town. This should ve making Town WF panic.Big scumtell. I literally want to tunnel wf.Wf vote me immediately.
...You serious? I've opposed mass claims of any kind virtually every game, and panicking is not something I do often. Not sure where you're getting that from. Don't know why you think I should vote you, either.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Knowing Pie someone has to be DeSantis/WhitmerDeSantis was mentioned by name in my DMI am Whitmer, yes.
...Seriously? Why would you claim your governor at this point?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@That2User
Supa was on, wanted him to engage
The lack of focus since on drawing reads from others, still stands out to me, though it makes more sense why you'd make that decision in the moment.
4 slight scum reads, why? I don't think I've seen you have this many in the opening, is it the low activity we have in the game?I do like the detail you giving, thank you wf
It's partly the low activity (at least in badger's case), but the rest of my reads just come from odd behaviors that I'm trying to put into context, which is getting clearer as the DP wears on. Your posting looks pretty townie to me (at least from my experience, these staccato posts are what I've seen from you chiefly as town), so I'd probably put you in the null camp. My other reads largely remain as is, since none of them have really contributed much since. SirAnon posted about his view of real life time commitments, which wasn't really the point I was making (it's more how badger chose to use his single post so far than that he had an excuse), and Best.Korea claimed a female governor without any pressure on him. I know he was doing this in response to RM's theory, and that that still leaves a number of options, but his decision to even claim to this degree following a pretty weak theory from RM (he tends to throw out a lot of weak theories early to test the waters) makes him a bit more suspicious to me. For the record, I don't support making a partial claim like this, mainly because the number of female governors is dwarfed by the number of male governors, and I don't want to make it easier for scum to fake claims.
Claims:GP - Tony EversAustin - Female govKorea - Female govRM - Male gov, confirmable roleSupa - confirmable role
I don't see anywhere in Austin's claim that he confirmed he was a female governor, though that is possible.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
@SirAnonymous
For Badger, it’s a light scumread. I don’t mind real life excuses, but it’s strange for him not to take the opportunity to post any thoughts, just to make the excuse and leave. It’s the weakest of my scum reads because he does tend to be more active as scum, but that can change whenever he has time to post.
Created:
Posted in:
Today's been rough so far, got a headache from power tools being used close to my head much of the morning - we're remodeling my building entirely and I haven't even had a place to sit down for much of the day.
In any case, I'm caught up on the DP, so I'll give some basic reads before I inevitably have to move locations again.
GP - likely town. Playing to his meta. It's possible that he's using a fake character claim and just came up with the compulsive visitor on the fly as a way to cover for any activity of his that takes place during the NP, but I doubt it. Much as I think the decision to call out what he thinks Austin's governor is is anti-town, it also falls in line with what I've seen from him before as town. He's my strongest townread so far.
WyIted - null. The "I am pretty much confirmed town" BS at the beginning of the DP reads pretty null to me, as does his decision to bounce between RM and Austin. WyIted likes to stir the pot in DP1 to some degree and I think he's doing just that.
That2User - slight scum read. Pretty much starting by asking about adding a 12th is a bit strange (we had started and it just seems silly to ask about adding another player when Pie has presumably balanced the game), but doesn't read either way to me. I don't like that That2 is openly narrowing the options for Austin's gov, since it's not beneficial to openly surmise about what he could be at this stage. Maybe this is just anti-town behavior as town, but I'm not as sure as I am with GP. Also, not sure why That2 just asked Supa for reads, but no one else.
Austin - slight town read. His "soft-claim" was anything but, and the light pressure that was being applied on him was no reason to do so. That being said, the decision itself felt townie. Maybe it's just my gut feeling, but I was pretty sure he'd push back harder against WyIted's sussing if he was scum. I don't love that his first post was an excuse not to be present, but I don't automatically read that as scummy.
RM - null. Consistently had a hard time reading RM this early. He's very active and seems more aware of his biases, which is off from his normal behavior patterns, but given that there's been a lot of strain with him over that behavior in previous games, I don't read that shift as scummy. Not surprised by his reads so far - they seem to fall within his usual pattern, though leaving SirAnon out of his full list of reads is a bit strange given all their interactions, even if he did address his view of SirAnon earlier.
SirAnon - slight scum read. The decision to post first with the excuse to not post followed by engagement is a strange choice, though given what he's deal with in terms of logging on, it might just be specific to this situation as he said. The reads make some sense, though he left quite a few people out of it and the decision to sus inactivity from Supa and me but not from Badger, who chose to start by giving an excuse and nothing else, is a bit scummy.
SupaDudz - null. Not going to try to read him off of a post that just says "Hello".
Best.Korea - slight scum read. I don't like the probability-based gameplay so far and the fact that he seems so confident of it is a little strange, as is the decision to handwave his logic as not having "any skills", though I want to read back through the previous game to get a feel for his play before I make a call on that. The fact that he called out there being "3 scums" in this game stands out more, though. I'd expect him to go through a set of options if he was town, not zero in on this as a likely scenario.
badger - slight scum read. Someone who posts this late in the DP where he could have posted at least some basic thoughts only to give a decently likely, if awfully convenient, excuse for not being active reads pretty scummy.
Barney - null. No posts yet.
Created:
Posted in:
Hey, good to be back at it. With Role Madness in play, I expect this will be chaotic, but I'm looking forward to it. Also, good to see GP is sticking to his meta.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
I think the rules are pretty clear. I'm not going to make this an open discussion of individual cases because they all have context that I can't assess without looking at them specifically. I haven't received any messages from you specifying any of your issues with these posts, so if you'd like to start sending specific instances with context to me instead of just reporting them and hoping that we somehow know the context regardless, I encourage you to do so. Otherwise, if you're looking for an overarching basis for what forum posts violate the CoC, you have more detailed information in that document than I can give you.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
The CoC is pretty clear. You're welcome to read it any time, but being insulting hasn't been against the CoC for quite a while now. I don't know what handcuffs you think I've placed on you, but there are clear limits to what anyone can do on this site, and they're all written here:
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
As always, I appreciate your insights.
If you disagree with my decisions, then so be it.
If I've changed your impression of me, then so be it.
At this point, based on our recent interactions, it seems like that's how it will stay for a while. You don't seem particularly interested in the kind of discussion that might yield something meaningful, and I may be responsible for some of that, so I'm not putting it all on you. If you honestly are expressing concern, though, you sure have a strange way of doing it via insults. That's consistently been a part of your dynamic with me, and it's working about as well now as it ever has.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@RationalMadman
No money was paid out, and much as he most definitely should not have been claiming that he would do this, it doesn’t mean we’re going to rehash the election.
Created:
Posted in:
I didn't realize that this needed to be fully clarified, but given how certain plans have been laid out here and elsewhere before, during and after the election, it's become apparent that I haven't done enough to explain what people can and cannot do as regards financial incentives. So, I'll clarify:
The use of funds to incentivize a given action are fine so long as it is clear that that action is generalized, e.g. voting in the election, voting on debates, voting in a MEEP. The moment those funds are used to direct a vote to anyone or any policy, regardless of the target, it becomes bribery, which is not allowed. It is in-bounds to use these incentives to encourage more people to vote. It is out-of-bounds to use these incentives to get a leg up from those votes. Candidates, or those supporting a given policy, must earn the votes for them or those policies without promises of monetary rewards.
If this is in any way unclear, please let me know. I will be adding it explicitly to future election rules.
Created:
Posted in:
After substantial discussion regarding several votes on the election thread (we appreciate everyone's patience), we have determined that the outcome stands as written at the end of the election thread:
RationalMadman: 19 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney, anderwee123, Tejretics, whiteflame, MeowRanger, WeaverofFate)
WyIted: 21 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan, bmdrocks21, Dr.Franklin, Mharman, SamStevens, Novice_II, rayhan16, badger, Bones, Vaarka, Ramshutu)
As such, after a hard-fought election, Wylted is officially declared the DART President. Congratulations!
There are a number of reasons that several of the votes were not counted. Several instances of multi-accounting were found among the voters, and those were compounded with those accounts having been created during the ongoing election. In one other instance, an account that had been made on the first day of the election cast a vote. While we had not specified rules for voting on this election beforehand, the efforts by several people to create new accounts during the election led us to making a cutoff. The main discussion over the last 24 hours has focused on a pair of votes that came from voters who had joined the site a few days before the election. We made the decision that, since these accounts only became active on the 18th (including both of the debates they posted on that date and the votes they cast), they would be treated the same as other accounts created during the election. While there are instances of accounts that have been inactive for long stretches of time coming back to vote, they all have long-established track records. Their absences did not invalidate their votes.
I recognize that this will be contentious. I suspect many of you will disagree with the decisions we have made. I'll say now that I apologize for the errors that have been made over the course of this election. That includes anything that came up before the voting, during it, and since it finished. It wasn't our aim to disenfranchise voters; we had to set a standard for voting and, frankly, the circumstances described above were not what we expected to see. We are still working things out that, though we should have been prepared to deal with many of these issues by this point. That includes a clear set of requirements to vote and ensuring that everything is run according to the established guidelines, which demands more time and attention to detail than I could provide this time around.
To improve things prior to the next election, and to improve the running of that election, I invite Wylted, Oromagi and RationalMadman to work with us on a new set of standards that we can use for a new MEEP to supplement/modify the existing one, as well as discussing options for oversight over the election process to ensure that it is running according to the MEEP. We leave it up to them to decide if and how much they wish to be involved, and we invite others to contribute to the discussion constructively.
Created:
Posted in:
Assuming my tally is correct (I'll verify tomorrow when I get a chance), here are the results:
RationalMadman: 19 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney, anderwee123, Tejretics, whiteflame, MeowRanger, WeaverofFate)
WyIted: 21 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan, bmdrocks21, Dr.Franklin, Mharman, SamStevens, Novice_II, rayhan16, badger, Bones, Vaarka, Ramshutu)
Abstaining: 3 (David, Lemming, Athias)
Votes for candidates who are in no way, shape or form running in this election:
whiteflame: 1 (That2User)
Several votes made in this thread were on accounts that were created during the election and, in some cases, were clear instances of multi-accounting. Some votes were cast by very recently made accounts prior to the election, which are under review. Should these results stand, WyIted will be the next DART President, though to be clear, until we review those votes, we cannot call this election definitively.
Created:
Posted in:
The election is officially over. Votes cast past 11 PM EST will not be counted.
Created:
Posted in:
LIVE Election Results
RationalMadman: 18 (RationalMadman, AustinL0926, K_Michael, zedvictor4, Lunatic, Sidewalker, Mikal, Intelligence_06, FLRW, SupaDudz, SkepticalOne, Reece101, Skipper_Sr, Barney, anderwee123, Tejretics, whiteflame, MeowRanger)
WyIted: 18 (YouFound_Lxam, Sir.Lancelot, Phenenas, Mps1213, Best.Korea, ILikePie5, WyIted, sadolite, Greyparrot, TWS1405_2, BearMan, bmdrocks21, Dr.Franklin, Mharman, SamStevens, Novice_II, rayhan16, badger)
Abstaining: 2 (David, Lemming)
Votes for candidates who are in no way, shape or form running in this election:
whiteflame: 1 (That2User)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
We had a misunderstanding about the topic and didn't want the debate to devolve into a back-and-forth about how the terms are defined. We're in the early stages of figuring out another topic for debate.
Created: