Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
There's a fine line between a post and a signature.
If CCC and CTF are to survive there must be open elections next time so that we can see precisely who has voted and who they voted for. If Candidate A gets, say, 50 votes from members we all know and recognize whilst Candidate B gets 60 votes (but only a few from names we recognize) then we can all draw the appropriate conslusion.
.
.
................. Mu Shin ..........................
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
"anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected" suggests that it is the elected person who stooped low.
meschle wrote:Congratulations Matthias, Swami, and Graham
Please may we have a cleaner forum
Maybe we should have a referendum on whether robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed in the forum - same voting restrictions as the moderation election.
If you don't like the discussions you are welcomed to move here:
rybkaforum.net/
The election here was mainly about whether or not robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed?
You are welcome to vote in 6 months for new moderators, or keep the one that are elected now. It is up to you. But the matter whether Ippo/Robbo links should be allowed has been settled....
According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
Damir wrote:
If you don't like the discussions you are welcomed to move here:
rybkaforum.net/
The election here was mainly about whether or not robbo/ippo etc.. links should be allowed?
You are welcome to vote in 6 months for new moderators, or keep the one that are elected now. It is up to you. But the matter whether Ippo/Robbo links should be allowed has been settled....
According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
Miguel
I forgot an important detail in my nominee text.
Ippo/Robbo links shall only be banned if the engines are proven to be clones of a commercial engine.
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
"anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected" suggests that it is the elected person who stooped low.
As you were not the only one "elected" it is not clear why you are so determined to cling onto the notion that Sam's comment applied to you. Perhaps you are also ignorant of the past behaviour of one of the other members of your team. If you are not, it makes your comment even more inexplicable.
michiguel wrote:According to the policies they ran, if they are shown to be clones, they (EDIT: the links) will be banned. Read the policies of the three winners. So, it has not been settled. What it has been settled is the people who will make the decisions about it.
I have a technical question about the moderation.
In the above post, were the links edited out by Miguel, or by a moderator?
There's a fine line between a post and a signature.
Sam Hull wrote:
Recruiting a bunch of inactive members who haven't read the board in months to log in and vote isn't my idea of a "free election," and anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected ought to be embarrassed.
In my opinion.
-Sam-
Because the above statement seems to cast doubts on my integrity, I herewith declare to the whole forum that I did not recruit anybody to vote for me, nor for anyone else.
I also did not send out anyone to go recruiting.
I am not even aware that anyone was recruited.
I will not answer any further attacks on me, direct or indirect.
Matthias.
Sam seems to be suggesting that you were installed -- not that you had any knowledge of it.
"anyone who has to stoop that low to get elected" suggests that it is the elected person who stooped low.
Yes, but three were elected. One person was very keen to see you, Jeremy and himself elected.
