From: nop@alt.net
Kibo informs me that Woodchuck Bill stated that:
>I'm beginning to think that both the Stromboli and Full Metal Jacket blocks
>were cast intentionally to cause trouble..
That wasn't obvious to everyone? I must be even more cynical than I
thought.
>not to sway the outcome either
>way. Guess what..it worked. They are probably laughing at the entire thing
>as we discuss it.
Well, they raised a legitimate issue in any case, so I find it hard to
begrudge them doing it in a way that they find amusing. Still, if Mr
Stromboli has been trolling here, (& I do think it's the most logical
explanation), I have to frankly admit that I'm impressed with his acting
ability. This is because, despite the incredibly suspicious-looking
nature of the whole situation, I have actually known people in who take
life so very seriously that they *would* hold a family meeting to
discuss a CFV.
> If they wanted to simply commit voter fraud, they could
>have done it in a far less obvious manner..like using random names with no
>apparent relationship to each other. It was a bad move to accept all of
>those "Stromboli" votes after the first proposal they voted on..three CFVs
>in a row is ridiculous. At the very least, there should be a rule against
>obvious serial/repeat voting.
Yes, but the devil is in the details. In order to ban serial voting, you
would have to draw a line /somewhere/. What *is* an 'obvious serial
voter', exactly? Is it someone votes in a dozen CFVs? How about six?
Less? More? Should a person perhaps only get one vote a year? And how do
you keep track of that, & changed identities?
Who's going to draw that line, then deal with the resulting flack?
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\\|/ \\|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
