You are taking Odeon's statement in this thread out of context, Calandale.
The fucking context is clear. The will of voters was simply
going to be disallowed. It ain't the first time.
I think that this post of Odeon's is more to the point:
http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=7181.msg329075#msg329075
Do you know what I think? I think that people were so anxious to get rid of the World Council and its endless polls, discussions, games, etc, that they simply voted for any option that allowed them to do that. Now that the WC is defunct, you grasp at the remaining straw for one last game.
The vote that won (when the WC was done away with) was "The First Citizenvis the jolly despot + crew", which means that Dunc & Co got to decide what to do next. Then Dunc did decide by pointing out that it was time for a new election. This happened in the caretaker's forum. That election is now under way.
Nice of him to decide to interpret what voters MEANT
rather than what they said. I think the soviets did this too, no?
This poll was an example of one of your slanted mind game polls, where people had to play your silly mind games just to vote in it. Even the name of the poll, "Did y'all mean what you voted for?" is highly slanted. It implies that the people who voted to turn the running of the site back over to Dunc and Odeon did not mean to vote the way that they did. The poll question was fine, "Should we have elections for admins?" However the two poll choices, "Yes - we were just joking when we voted against this," and "No - We trust dunc to select whatever staff he needs," are also slanted. A Yes vote in this poll would imply that the voter does not trust Dunc and also that the voter was joking in the poll where we voted to turn the running of the site back over to Dunc and Odeon. I tried to tell you this, but you refused to listen.
Because, PART of the point was to get members who voted AGAINST elected
admins to speak the why of doing so. I could see three possible reasons - one, they
were fucking joking, they changed their minds, or they were forced into gaming a
menu poll. In any case, the answer to which of these, would have been interesting.
Ah, I suppose that there IS another, that they were too fucking idiotic to know what
they were doing. But, I really don't think that of anyone here.
you started this poll on January 20, 2008 in an attempt to undermine him and Dunc and to overturn the election process, probably because you did not like the fact that Scrapheap and Hadron were ineligible to run because of previous abuses.
Interesting that you KNOW the reasons I do things, when
even I am uncertain. Must be nice to ALWAYS be right, eh?
Makes you feel all special? So important?
Give me a fucking break. At least I only
speculate about your
hidden agenda, whatever it may be.
The result of this poll was 4 Yes votes and 5 No votes with 9 people voting because the rest either found your options confusing or they refused to play your mind games.
Or wouldn't admit to what they had voted for.
I noticed this tendency, in the WC. People making
what seemed completely asinine choices, which I
presumed were done out of spite, and then not
owning up to the results. Like those who voted
FOR the fiat poll.
As you can see, the result of the poll that asks, "Should we elect our admins?" with more neutral wording is quite different: 10 votes for Yes and 3 for No.
Interesting how easily people are willing to
change what they say, when it's not made
clear that they are backtracking, isn't it?
"Is she gone yet?"