NationStates

Battlion wrote:

Oneracon wrote:
Admins say otherwise, and in the absence of specific laws governing elections Admins are Word of God.

Making a new post I agree with, editing the initial vote post is cheating.

And that is because Yanalia told him to do

No, the person wished to change his vote and was forbidden. So I told him to edit out the fact that he voted at all before his second vote, so that his second vote would in fact be his first.

Ainin wrote:

Battlion wrote:
Making a new post I agree with, editing the initial vote post is cheating.

And that is because Yanalia told him to do

Actually, I told him to.

That's even worse then, admins advocating cheating.

Great Nepal wrote:

Resora wrote:Ikania's account is not new and has seen active use on the forums. He's obviously not a puppet, and this attempt to deny him a vote is bullshit.

He just said his original account can not be revived because it was deleted. That must count as excessive bans.

One DEAT. That's it. Excessive bans is not a person making ONE mistake.

Resora wrote:Ikania's account is not new and has seen active use on the forums. He's obviously not a puppet, and this attempt to deny him a vote is bullshit.

But someone who just wants a extra vote could have picked his name and only claimed to be the owner. All conjecture to start a controversy though.

Battlion wrote:

Ainin wrote:Actually, I told him to.

That's even worse then, admins advocating cheating.

I'm flattered by the suggestion, but since when am I an admin?

Bleckonia wrote:The actions taken by maklohi vai are absolutely disgusting. Overriding set rules to get votes for someone is ludicrous. If that vote is not rendered null, I WILL resign. I cannot participate in an RP where people like mv think they can override set rules.

It seems, senator, that you are not a trusting person. There are several things that point to Ikania being fine and as such would not override any rules, but I suppose you do have a point here. I still maintain that he should be allowed, but at this point:

I am removing myself from an administration capacity on the Ikania issue. Other admins will decide.

OOC: This was actually really offensive to me. I did what I thought was fair and best, and now I'm getting a ton of shit for it. I would have thought you guys were a little more understanding.

Battlion wrote:

Ainin wrote:Actually, I told him to.

That's even worse then, admins advocating cheating.

It's not cheating. People have always been able to change their votes.

Yanalia wrote:I told him to edit out the fact that he voted at all before his second vote, so that his second vote would in fact be his first.

Which would have been cheating.

Battlion wrote:

Ainin wrote:Actually, I told him to.

That's even worse then, admins advocating cheating.

Admins cannot cheat, since they are Word of God in an RP

What they say goes.

The Republic of Llamas wrote:

Resora wrote:Ikania's account is not new and has seen active use on the forums. He's obviously not a puppet, and this attempt to deny him a vote is bullshit.

This.

This is my stance, too, but I'm sort of just watching this argument and waiting for the outcome.

Great Nepal wrote:

Resora wrote:Ikania's account is not new and has seen active use on the forums. He's obviously not a puppet, and this attempt to deny him a vote is bullshit.

He just said his original account can not be revived because it was deleted. That must count as excessive bans.

I seen people accepted by the founder who had one DEAT.

The Republic of Llamas wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:He just said his original account can not be revived because it was deleted. That must count as excessive bans.

One DEAT. That's it. Excessive bans is not a person making ONE mistake.

You dont get DEAT by making one mistake. You get that by consistently breaking the rules.

Oneracon wrote:

Resora wrote:Ikania's account is not new and has seen active use on the forums. He's obviously not a puppet, and this attempt to deny him a vote is bullshit.

Shush, it gives certain members of the AfA pleasure to think that we are part of some massively organized conspiracy to win an imaginary election.

XD Don't forget the USLP is somewhere in there, too...

Jetan wrote:

Yanalia wrote:I told him to edit out the fact that he voted at all before his second vote, so that his second vote would in fact be his first.

Which would have been cheating.

Cheating is forbidding someone to change their vote. I was trying to make sure that vote changes were possible, as they always have been and democratically should be.

Britcan wrote:

Battlion wrote:
That's even worse then, admins advocating cheating.

It's not cheating. People have always been able to change their votes.

Not by editing their post after it's been counted.

That IS cheating

Ahem: viewtopic.php?p=15549926#p15549926

Great Nepal wrote:

The Republic of Llamas wrote:One DEAT. That's it. Excessive bans is not a person making ONE mistake.

You dont get DEAT by making one mistake. You get that by consistently breaking the rules.

The founder would disagree with you then. Just saying.

Battlion wrote:

Britcan wrote:It's not cheating. People have always been able to change their votes.

Not by editing their post after it's been counted.

That IS cheating

That's retconning an IC vote. Retconning is not cheating.

In response to all this;
1. Yes, I was deleted. I am ashamed to say I was forumbanned and deleted. If that's grounds for excessive bans, then okay.
2. I am definitely Mojave, and I can prove it in any way.
3. I have (technically) been very active on the forums since April, and that should count.

Great Nepal wrote:

The Republic of Llamas wrote:One DEAT. That's it. Excessive bans is not a person making ONE mistake.

You dont get DEAT by making one mistake. You get that by consistently breaking the rules.

He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

Uiiop wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:He just said his original account can not be revived because it was deleted. That must count as excessive bans.

I seen people accepted by the founder who had one DEAT.

How does that not violate excessive ban clause? You usually get an unofficial warning, several warnings, one day ban, two day ban, seven day ban, then DEAT.

Bodobol wrote:

Great Nepal wrote:You dont get DEAT by making one mistake. You get that by consistently breaking the rules.

He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

I am still going to vote against it because of excessive ban. DEAT is a DEAT...

Battlion wrote:

Britcan wrote:It's not cheating. People have always been able to change their votes.

Not by editing their post after it's been counted.

That IS cheating

This may be news to you, but this is an RP.

We have retconned many Senate related things in the past. In fact, retconning one vote is probably the smallest thing that's ever been retconned in this Senate.

Great Nepal wrote:

Bodobol wrote:
He made two mistakes; he mistook TET for a spam thread, which got him a 24 hour forumban. Then, not knowing that it was against the rules, he used a puppet in TET to ask why he was forumbanned, which caused his nation to get deleted (and the puppet, of course).

I am still going to vote against it because of excessive ban. DEAT is a DEAT...

Total: 2 warns.

"Excessive"

Great Nepal wrote:

Uiiop wrote:I seen people accepted by the founder who had one DEAT.

How does that not violate excessive ban clause? You usually get an unofficial warning, several warnings, one day ban, two day ban, seven day ban, then DEAT.

Again
Purpose of rules /=/ the rules themselves
We don't want any trouble makers in this RP
Newbie not getting rules then getting them when it's too late /=/ Troublemaking.