the evidence-before-condemnation camp

[Matthias Gemuh]

The team is:

Jeremy
Damir
Matthias

Bob is not running.
If Clare or Swami pops in, Matthias falls out.
We will run with only 3 candidates.

Matthias.

[bnemias]

The team is:

Jeremy
Damir
Matthias

Bob is not running.
If Clare or Swami pops in, Matthias falls out.
We will run with only 3 candidates.

Matthias.

I find it very un-democratic and un-free to run a free election "as a team", however I see little choice but to fight fire with fire, as the opposing side's decision has been clearly planned for months.

I do want to mention that the charter doesn't talk about "evidence-before-condemnation", but uses the rather vague term "...of questionable legal status", which tends to include more than less.

I think there's some merit in trying to narrow the charter's wording so that some evidence might be required. Then I would have no trouble accepting the premise of this thread.

[swami]

The team is:

Jeremy
Damir
Matthias

Bob is not running.
If Clare or Swami pops in, Matthias falls out.
We will run with only 3 candidates.

Matthias.

Good luck guys. Although It would be better if Bob accepts

Dann Corbit and Bob Hyatt were perfect and experienced moderators that don't have enemies.

[Damir]

Hi Mathias

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

[Matthias Gemuh]

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.

[michiguel]

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.

You declined the nomination first, but now you are trying to manipulate the election?
good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Miguel

[Matthias Gemuh]

You declined the nomination first, but now you are trying to manipulate the election?
good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Miguel

Miguel,

best way to fight back is to accept your nomination and run for election .

Matthias.

[swami]

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.

You declined the nomination first, but now you are trying to manipulate the election?
good guys vs bad guys? my goodness....

Miguel

Hi Miguel,

Sam Hull also declined the nomination first, but then accepted it later.

It's normal to change one's mind especially when situation demands it.

[bnemias]

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

Is there any other way to see it?

[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.

-Sam