What’s wrong with your question is the supposition of malfeasance (as opposed to more information) by people who have more information than you do as your explanation for an unexpected outcome. I mean, I know I was being a condescending dick. Did you ever think that you were also?
Fwiw. I saw the post too and immediately went to do an IP check. @otatop just beat me to it by a few hours.
Also fwiw. I think asking for an explanation of mod action is a perfectly reasonable request.
1 Like
There was malfeasance. Your extra knowledge should make you more accommodating, not more aggressive. You would be banned for your response to me if you weren’t a mod.
What?
The least malfeasant explanation is that Jman had a friend, who had never visited the site before and hasn’t since, vote in a poll. This is after Jman already voted in the poll twice.
Before you helpfully added new info (while pausing to insult me), it seemed just as likely to me that TucsonRon is actually Jman. The IP check is helpful, but as you well know, not definitive.
1 Like
False
This is an argument that started over mods checking ips. We have that power, and. I am pretty sure that you know it. To assume we didn’t use it with Ron but did with your bud is to accuse us of malfeasance. You could at least have the decency ask us if we checked rather than accusing the mods of neglect or cover up.
Did you know that it’s his friend? (or “friend”). He said so. Everything else I said is true, so my guess is that you didn’t know that.
I made no such accusation. I was accusing Jman. An IP check helps, but is far from definitive from disproving Ron is Jman.
Moreover, it does nothing at all to disprove my initial accusation: Jman voted twice and then recruited a random friend with no connection to the site to vote again. That’s malfeasance on his part, not yours.
You could even things out and insult him a couple times. Or, you know, apologize.
1 Like
A significantly less malfeasant explanation than yours was already given:
Ron was lurking the forum as an unregistered user regularly, registered to vote, and then logged out to continue lurking
That “explanation” was sarcasm. But my friend MassachusettsKarenFromSharon may be showing up to vote in the next close election. Long time first time dontcha know.
1 Like
I mean…that’s possible…there’s no law of nature that it violates, but it is quite far from the most plausible explanation. Why would someone do that?
This is a lie.
I am not Ron. Ron is not my friend. I never said he was.
Also, thank goodness for me we established the precedent that posting from a gimmick while your main account is tempbanned only results in the ban of the gimmick with no further action taken against the main account.
3 Likes
I don’t know or particularly care. But you’re the one talking about “definitive proof” and the “least malfeasant explanation”.
I was hoping you and others would read my posts charitably, as you normally do under normal circumstances.
I suppose the arch-pedant’s maximally least malfeasant explanation is that Ron signed up to vote in a controversial poll on a site he never reads in order to SAVE THE WORLD. That would be the least malfeasant explanation. I’m glad that’s sorted.
Did you know him before he signed up?
Nope.
So how did you find out the info about him on the day (maybe day after?) he signed up?
1 Like
My how those goalposts shift.
You’re not willing to grant either Ron or the mods who examined his vote the same charity you expect them to give you.
Again, it wasn’t just an accusation against jman. It was an accusation that the mods had failed to heed your previous accusation that the account was bullshit.
Sure looks like you’re mistaken about a few things here. You’re welcome to quote jman and prove us wrong.
From a third party. I’ve provided the information to a moderator and I don’t owe you anything else.
Well that’s all very convenient.
2 Likes
I don’t think it’s uncharitable to simply point out that you’re wrong. As far as we know, the guy created an account to vote, and even made a post explaining why. Not only is there no definitive proof, there doesn’t seem to be any evidence at all that it’s a duplicate vote.
I agree it’s suspicious and it seems like it’s probably a duplicate vote. But we shouldn’t be disenfranchising somebody without any proof.
If you want to make some rules governing who is eligible to vote in binding RFC polls, I’d probably get on board. Min time registered, min number of posts, something reasonable, whatever, I don’t know.
Were there really two JMan accounts that voted in the poll? Were both those votes counted? That seems much more egregious.
2 Likes