Department of Federal Elections

[Oakvale]

Who is charge here? What is going on? Has the Department of Federal Elections become some kind of perverted post-modern charade? This is a national disgrace. 

Hear hear comrade. The President must fire "Peebs" immediately. At least Teddy would actually post results in between breaks from reality.

[Oakvale]

While I am confident of victory against the witch hunt in my party, I would dispute the * affixed to my name on the ballot given that I would remain, constitutionally, a registered Federalist regardless of my actual membership of the Party proper and as such should appear as such on the ballot.

[Oakvale]

Two questions for clarification:

1. DabbingSanta's ballot was excluded - I understand this is because he allegedly double posted. Do we have hard evidence of this? Or is it possible for, if necessary, a moderator or similar to confirm?

2. Similarly: has nerd73's ballot been counted? I believe there's some kind of controversy over his having supposedly deleted posts (thus bringing him under the eight posts in eight weeks mark after the fact).

[Oakvale]

YE has confirmed both situations.

Many thanks.

Two further clarifications:

1. re: DabbingSanta - what was the exact situation that transpired? He made two separate posts with separate ballots? He posted the same ballot twice? He posted one, then more than twenty minutes later, deleted it and posted another?

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

[Oakvale]

Not sure for either, honestly.

Thanks - I think it would be preferable to have clarity on this prior to certification of any result.

[Oakvale]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

[Oakvale]

2. re:nerd73, is there precedent on a ballot standing because of post-vote post deletions? I may be misinformed but couldn't one argue that this is in effect a voter consciously invalidating their own ballot, as if they were to edit it after the time limit?

In addition to the above points - that the FEA refers to ‘having made eight posts’, a set of past actions, rather than to a statistic in the present (post count) - there has also, to my understanding, been a legal consensus that invalidations after the election are not permitted and also should not affect the final result if possible.

Keep in mind that if a ballot itself were to be deleted during the time that these post deletions took place, it would fall very directly under the federal crime of ‘ballot tampering’; the name alone here suggests that the status of the election as of the vote closing should be considered final.

And consider the necessary alternative of any other proposal: namely, that every election be allowed to remain in flux all the way through the end of the litigation period - which falls at “one week after certification”. This means that no certification can be truly complete, as it would have to account for possible changes like this in the week after it ism made officia. This despite the FEA also clearly stating “ An official certification is completely final and may only be altered by order of the Supreme Court of Atlasia.”

The textual contradictions here just add up far too quickly - not to mention rather disastrous implications on the game itself.

Thanks.

I'm actually more interested in the evidence presented via YE - can a moderator actually see if someone deleted a post or not (themselves as vs. being moderated)? Genuine question, I don't know whether they can or not.

Moderators have access to a board containing all deleted posts.

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

[Oakvale]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

The key thing to me, it would seem, is whether those two posts were less than twenty minutes apart.

[Oakvale]

Is that the case? My very vague recollection back from the 'death points' days was moderators only had a list of posts that had been deleted by moderators, rather than by the user, but I was never a mod so my memory may be failing me.

This is a very recent change I believe. I think the "recycling board" as it is called was only properly implemented in 2020. As late as 2019 an election I was running in which involved a similar scenario (double posting + deleted ballot) we were forced to depend on well timed screenshots and testimony from people who saw those ballots.

Although perhaps one of our resident mods or admins could say more.

I don't know the exact date of implementation and I want to say it has existed since I was mod in late 2019 though whether it was fully effective yet or not someone else would have to say. I have seen the deleted post in the recycle board as well and can confirm its existence.

The key thing to me, it would seem, is whether those two posts were less than twenty minutes apart.

The deleted post and the new post by Dabbing Santa are a minute and a half apart. The only difference is a change in formatting and how the Presidential selection was marked.

This would seem to be a very clear cut case of 'editing' one's ballot in a slightly roundabout way!

[Oakvale]

The voter in question clearly only 'cast' one ballot though, which was not deleted. An earlier mistake was corrected in less than two minutes. Surely this is functionally identical to simply editing, within the time limit, as allowed?

All posts made in the voting booth shall be considered as ballots, and no citizen shall cast multiple ballots in any one election during the period the voting booth is open, upon penalty of the invalidation of their vote.

6. No voter may edit their ballot once twenty minutes have passed since its casting, nor may they delete their own ballot - either of these actions render the voter invalid for the election, and neither that ballot nor any other ballot cast by that voter in the same election shall be counted.

I am very skeptical that this is the first occasion that such a thing has happened and gone unnoticed in an Atlasian election, although it may be the first occasion on which it may be decisive in the result. It seems like very obscure grounds on which to disenfranchise a voter.