Is there any evidence or testimony for the above statement?
Is RM really trying to overturn the elections?
Posts
Total:
56
-->
@MeowRanger
There were 2 votes for me that were not counted despite being eligible to vote.
These accounts did more or as much in the past 2 years on DART than 2-3 voters for Wylted.
The question is about eligibility and where the rules were made truly clear.
Lancelot changed his vote to Wylted from for himself but that issue has been dropped by me.
-->
@MeowRanger
You have his response which is a lot of words to say yes.
Also if you accept what RM says you would have to accept the johnny blaze vote. So there is a cutoff on when votes should be eligible
I am waiting for moderator's reply
But still I don't understand wylted simply won the elections so why is there so much fuzz around?
Most likely.
It's possible it is a bluff, but I doubt it.
Either way, it doesn't make a difference.
-->
@RationalMadman
@MeowRanger
I'd like to publicly set the record straight on exactly what happened. I've already DM'd this to whiteflame, who has (guerngrarq gb creznona).
I, and the two people that voted for RM, share a class together. We all do IRL debate. Recently, I have encouraged many of my friends from IRL debate to join DART, in order to try and revive some activity on this overlooked site.
Yesterday, after sending some debate challenges to each other for fun on DART, I told them about the current election, and encouraged them to drop a vote.
Here is what I did:
- Encouraged them to vote, and showed them the voting thread
- Linked them to both candidates' platforms
- Told them that RM's platform was based on hosting events and increasing activity for the site
- Told them that Wylted's platform was giving gift cards, confronting mods, and stopping RM
- Said that I had voted for RM
Here is what I did not do:
- Pressure them to vote for RM
- Spread false information about Wylted
- Recruit them to the site for the sole purpose of voting RM
I am unaware why whiteflame has decided to disenfranchise them. If it's based on activity, then why were Vaarka (inactive for 2 years) and SamStevens (inactive for 4 years) counted? If it's based on account age, by what arbitrary, post-election standard were their votes not counted?
At this point, I am not just fighting for RM (although I do believe he would be a better president than Wylted). I am fighting for democracy, fairness, and clear voting rights.
P.S. Civil disobedience, for a just cause, is a moral imperative.
So I guess misunderstanding is solved(Some PM conversations occured).. Democracy is safe.
So now we’re condoning ballot harvesting?
-->
@AustinL0926
That is a biased way to present the platforms. I literally bumped my platform from last year and mentioned inwould just carbon copy airmax's plan.
A plan by the way you should support because it increases site activity. You should get your friends to sign the pledge. It is clear you are the alpha of the group and your IRL friends were going to do what you wanted
-->
@MeowRanger
Is there any evidence or testimony for the above statement?
Yes. Chief Moderator Whiteflame saw the 2 votes in question and willfully did not count them likely because they were clearly created for the purpose of voting with zero activity prior to the votes.
RM is contesting this miscount because he lost and solely for that reason. He’s basically a sore loser (he practically admitted hit with his numerous outbursts as I have seen countless times)
At best what he could do is tie, which would create a DARTional Crisis. There is no scenario for a tie in the election. Wylted has already pledged to reform the election process so these types of questions do not come up again. RM has no such plan
-->
@AustinL0926
At this point, I am not just fighting for RM (although I do believe he would be a better president than Wylted). I am fighting for democracy, fairness, and clear voting rights.P.S. Civil disobedience, for a just cause, is a moral imperative.
Why would democracy, fairness, and voting rights magically disappear under Wylted's authority?
-->
@ILikePie5
I proposed a solution in the case that it was a tie to both Barney and Whiteflame.
Settled over a 2-round debate with 12-24 hours of posting time where both candidates can outline their respective positions. Voting period would take place over a week, giving everyone enough time. So no excuses if either of the candidates lost because their supporters couldn't get online in time.
Could be Open Voting or Judicial Decision.
-->
@Sir.Lancelot
I proposed a solution in the case that it was a tie to both Barney and Whiteflame.Settled over a 2-round debate with 12-24 hours of posting time where both candidates can outline their respective positions. Voting period would take place over a week, giving everyone enough time. So no excuses if either of the candidates lost because their supporters couldn't get online in time.Could be Open Voting or Judicial Decision.
So RM can steal it? Definitely not lol.
Wylted legally won. Even WF has initially admitted that. If Wylted won by 3 instead of 2, WF would not even be reconsidering
-->
@ILikePie5
At best what he could do is tie, which would create a DARTional Crisis. There is no scenario for a tie in the election. Wylted has already pledged to reform the election process so these types of questions do not come up again. RM has no such plan
Pretty easy solution honestly. Moderators are not allowed to vote but are allowed to break a tie
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
If RM really wanted to win the presidency, he should have clearly lied about being for proxy wars for profit as Wylted most certainly did. You can't expect to win if you do not choose the correct lie.
-->
@Greyparrot
If RM really wanted to win the presidency, he should have clearly lied about being for proxy wars for profit as Wylted most certainly did. You can't expect to win if you do not choose the correct lie.
You have knack for politics. I hope you run for a real political office soon
-->
@PREZ-HILTON
How was it a biased way to present your platform when it was literally the reasons you gave for why voters should vote you president?
-->
@AustinL0926
I am a scatterbrain. It's easy to pick times where I made good cases and bad cases for running. You should have used last year's platform and told them I was endorsed by vermin supreme and Rudy Giuliani
"It is clear you are the alpha of the group and your IRL friends were going to do what you wanted"
You seriously think debaters - a group of people whose defining trait is critical thinking - would blindly vote for someone just because I asked? Also it's hilarious you think I'm the alpha, IRL I'm an introvert who hangs around the group.
-->
@AustinL0926
Talk to me in private please, trust me, Wylted is baiting you here, stop replying to him altogether.
-->
@AustinL0926
I read their debates. Do not lie about their critical thinking skills ever again.
I am saying you physically intimidate them and probably are overly friendly with their mothers
-->
@AustinL0926
Be honest. Have you had relationships with their mothers?
-->
@Wylted
I am not going to respond to your baiting any longer. However, I have screenshotted your messages for future reference. Goodbye.
-->
@Greyparrot
If RM really wanted to win the presidency, he should have clearly lied about being for proxy wars for profit as Wylted most certainly did. You can't expect to win if you do not choose the correct lie.
RM should have said his Mom was in the twin towers on 911, his grandparents were Holocaust refugees, and that he worked for Goldman Sachs and Citigroup.
-->
@SkepticalOne
@zedvictor4
@Sidewalker
@MeowRanger
@WeaverofFate
This may interest you, one of his alts here, take a look there and indulge in Wylted in his raw form.
-->
@RationalMadman
Sorry I lied about being genetically inferior in that thread. It is clear I am genetically superior but it doesn't win you friends to admit it
-->
@AustinL0926
You seriously think debaters - a group of people whose defining trait is critical thinking - would blindly vote for someone just because I asked?
I didnt know that critical thinking = omniscience. Thanks for informing us.