forums.marpirc.net

Given you made then "or"s, I disagree with #3...cuz someone could have joined 3 years ago submitted maybe 1-2 scores 2.5 years ago....and hasn't been around since. They shouldn't get to vote...cuz they are out of touch with MARP.

I agree with the others though....plus perhaps 6 months minimum membership...which was stated above...member since at least August 1, 2003.

I think half the editors aren't even eligible to vote given the above checklist...cuz they haven't submitted any scores in December and January.

Yeah Pat... a little crazy, I can agree with that.

But I agree with LN2... you should have to participate - so it should be (20 INPS OR 20 POSTS) AND 6 MONTHS.

So you have to qualify for ONE of the first two, AND the third.

I should mention, Pat, that the editors have to do what I mentioned before - nullify the election and change the rules - except you need 2/3 of the editors instead of 2/3 of the general public.

Pete, your last inp submission is

20 Oct 02 -mspacpls , description being; "Just in case I decide to vote..."

...Ehrm!


I'm sure editors can get agreement on the rules. 2/3 is pretty harsh though. Maybe that rule should be dropped too, it's very stupid in a clear 50-50 case of banning a cheat etc.

I'm still missing the list of editors to vote for.

TJT wrote:I'm still missing the list of editors to vote for.

Skito
Pat
mahlemiut
Frankie
BBH
Phil
QRS

I have three votes so far - I have replied to all three, signifying wheater it was a legal vote or not.

I hope there's more than three people qualified... otherwise, maybe I should take a vote to nullify this election...

gameboy9 wrote:I have three votes so far - I have replied to all three, signifying wheater it was a legal vote or not.

I hope there's more than three people qualified... otherwise, maybe I should take a vote to nullify this election...

This can't be unexpected.

These elections are being held two months late and almost no one complained. I mentioned it in passing in the forums and no one responded, and Buttermaker has brought it up in #marp.

In a sense I guess this can be looked at in a positive light - people are happy enough with the way things are.

Also, bear in mind that there is still a week left. I haven't even gotten around to voting yet.

I think we should accept the results from however few people care enough to vote. Plenty are eligible.

gameboy9 wrote:maybe I should take a vote to nullify this election...

Anyway, what if nobody votes on that?

Weehawk:

Then........ I don't know......

gameboy9 wrote:Also - a request to the editors:

Can you please address Buttermaker's request within three days? I know - not a lot of time - but he should have ample time to vote if you're going to give him the right to vote.

Thanks.

Buttermaker:

Sorry, I did not see your request until know. No idea how I could miss it as I have read this thread 2 times..

You are 100% ok for me to have the right to vote. I´m sure that the other editors will agree with me.

Thank God Zwaxy's scripts make MARP run pretty much automatically.

Weehawk wrote::roll:

Thank God Zwaxy's scripts make MARP run pretty much automatically.

hehehe

Weehawk wrote:Thank God Zwaxy's scripts make MARP run pretty much automatically.

Indeed!!

Not bad for...

Zwaxy wrote:"An Englishman with very little brain"

{;-þ)

Pat.

Looks like I can't vote.

Buttermaker wrote:Looks like I can't vote.

I don't know.

Two editors have voted that you can, none have voted (openly) that you can't. Does that count as a majority if the other five have abstained?

Submit a ballot to Gameboy9, see if he accepts it.

You're probably half my body of voters.