the evidence-before-condemnation camp

[Harvey Williamson]

good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Is there any other way to see it?

ummm...yes. There are some good guys on both sides of the issue that happen to disagree. A very natural situation.

-Sam

Sam,

You would make the ideal mod as you talk sense.

Harvey

[bnemias]

good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Is there any other way to see it?

ummm...yes. There are some good guys on both sides of the issue that happen to disagree. A very natural situation.

I would have agreed... until one side decided to run as a team. At that point, I considered them bad guys. What a gross manipulation of a democratic system, introducing a favorable bias. It's sickening.

And it inexorably lead to the other side doing the same thing. I can't blame the reaction, because as I see it, they had no choice after the sense of urgency caused by the first team.

[BubbaTough]

good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Is there any other way to see it?

ummm...yes. There are some good guys on both sides of the issue that happen to disagree. A very natural situation.

I would have agreed... until one side decided to run as a team. At that point, I considered them bad guys. What a gross manipulation of a democratic system, introducing a favorable bias. It's sickening.

And it inexorably lead to the other side doing the same thing. I can't blame the reaction, because as I see it, they had no choice after the sense of urgency caused by the first team.

You are not required to vote for the team...they are only expressing a preference on who to serve with. This has happened during quite a number of the elections here. Feel free to pick and choose those you like regardless of what "team" they are on.

-Sam

[bnemias]

You are not required to vote for the team

I realize that.

...they are only expressing a preference on who to serve with.

That's not the way it reads. And even so, that introduces a bias.

This has happened during quite a number of the elections here.

That doesn't make it any less shady.

[michiguel]

You are not required to vote for the team

I realize that.

...they are only expressing a preference on who to serve with.

That's not the way it reads. And even so, that introduces a bias.

This has happened during quite a number of the elections here.

That doesn't make it any less shady.

One thing is to express preference or support towards a running mate, another is drop or discourage to accept nominations.

Miguel

[bnemias]

One thing is to express preference or support towards a running mate, another is drop or discourage to accept nominations.

I think it was simply a reaction to what happened. But I see your point.

They weren't just expressing a preference, though. It was coordinated. Just look at their philosophy statements.

They each mentioned wanting the others. The timing proximity didn't happen by chance.

[kingliveson]

Hi Mathias

Why get satisfied with just 3? We should have as many people here as possible, just in case things should go wrong

No. Let's keep the number of votes per candidate high.
People will either vote for evidence-before-condemnation or
censorship-and-commercial-interests.

People who like evidence-before-condemnation will vote for our 3.
A bad guy once won in CTF because there were too many good guys.

Matthias.

+1