Legion World Forums LEGION OUTPOST Mission Monitor Board Every 10 Years Forum LW Elections: ELECTION POLL NOW UP!

As I said above -- which you may have missed, since it was likely added while your last post was being composed -- I provided an explanation that was adequate for purposes of the general LW public. There was no reason to elaborate.

When your business impacts how LW business is conducted, it becomes LW business.

I'd ask what the hell that means, but I think I'll do the interpreting this time. Email and message with Stu! Or he might not give you the same consideration he gives others while administering an LW election!

That sort of thing could get someone in trouble in the real world. But here...it's just sad.

I don't think I have anything else to say on this. These elections are meant to be fun, and I'll turn it back over to those who are having a good time with it.

I e-mailed or PMed people on the list purely out of courtesy -- not because I was bound to under some unwritten set of LW election rules, but because I wanted to. Had I not e-mailed or PMed anyone at all, I doubt anyone would have complained -- and, had they done so, I could have simply pointed to my original post and say, "Too bad, you were supposed to contact me, and you didn't."

But I didn't want to do things in such a harsh and unforgiving way. Even though I could have simply sat back and done nothing for four days, and then posted the declination list, I went out of my way to make sure that I double-checked people for whom I felt there was even a shadow of a doubt that they might be interested in running this time around.

Yes, there were a few people whom I didn't send an e-mail or PM to for various reasons. Greybird was one of them -- because, despite the fact that he never contacted me via e-mail or PM, his statements on the other nominations thread made it abundantly clear that he had no interest in running. You (TD/LYL) were another, because I would have thought that any reasonable person would interpret: (1) having one's post count reset to zero + (2) not posting on LW at all for over five weeks, despite being online and posting elsewhere in that same time period + (3) declining, rather forcefully, in both of the previous elections = not interested in running in this election. If there's anyone out there who can come to the opposite conclusion from that same set of facts, please speak up.

(Also, I knew that the other people on the list who were absent from LW in the last week were very likely absent only temporarily -- due to a computer problem or something similar. Certainly, no one else had been gone for over a month.)

In any case, as I said above, e-mailing and PMing people was done out of courtesy. It was not done because election protocol demanded it, or because failing to do so would have resulted in a fundamental unfairness in the election process. It was done as a favor -- no more, no less.

Why on earth would I extend a courtesy or favor to someone who, by their own words, wouldn't return that same courtesy or favor? That's not only illogical, but also mildly masochistic.

What's truly "sad" here is that you've made a specific, crystal-clear request not to be contacted via e-mail or PM. Yet, when that request is honored to the letter, you throw a fit and claim to have been unfairly singled out -- to have not been given the same "consideration" that others were given. How would it have been possible to react in any way that would have satisfied you?

Worst of all, you accused me of doing something that "could get someone in trouble in the real world." But in the real world, no one would complain about the fact that a person has extended a courtesy to certain people, but not to others with whom he has no relationship whatsoever.

The bottom line is this: you've made your point clear, time and time again, that you're under no obligation to do anything for anyone you don't want to. That's fine. But why shouldn't the same principle apply to everyone else? Anything less would be the very definition of hypocrisy.

With just a little more than 24 hours remaining in this preliminary round, the following Legion Worlders have received one or more nominations:

Juan
Portfolio Boy
Varalent
l'il rhino
Cobalt Kid
Harbinger
Danny Blaine
Invisible Brainiac
Arachne
Poverty Lad
Quislet
icefire
Outdoor Miner
Numf-El
Stoopid Cat

TOMORROW NIGHT: The numbers!

To nominate a fellow poster, please send me a PM by clicking on the icon above, with the name of your nominee.

Thanks!

YAY - Danny for Legion Leader! I can see it now! I'll build a tower high in the sky and look down on everyone!

Oh wait... (Mantis just whispered in my ear that that's a bad idea).

OK how about this? A gleaming fortress with a giant picture of me in front? Mantis? No?

Hmmm... I'll have to think on this one...

I'm Switzerland.

Have a run in with Turns You Into A Country Kid again, Kippers?

Hmm... Mantis for LW Leader... now there's an interesting idea...!

THis one would prefer to let Danny win. That way, this one can manip... advise him from behind the scenes...

That's my line!

That's my line! [/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">I thought your line was:

STU, you're

<font size="12]BANNED!

giggle

With about 12 hours remaining in this preliminary round, the following Legion Worlders have received one or more nominations:

Arachne
Outdoor Miner
l'il rhino
Juan
Harbinger
Danny Blaine
Invisible Brainiac
Stoopid Cat
Cobalt Kid
Poverty Lad
Varalent
Quislet
icefire
Numf-El
Portfolio Boy

TONIGHT: The numbers!

To nominate a fellow poster, please send me a PM by clicking on the icon above, with the name of your nominee.

Declining:
Abin Quank
Eryk Davis Ester
Fat Cramer
<strike>Greybird</strike>
He Who Wanders
Kid Prime
Lightning Lad
MLLASH
Nightcrawler
rickshaw1
Semi Transparent Fellow
STU
Thriftshop Debutante/Leap Year Lass

I thought your line was:

STU, you're

<font size="12]BANNED! [/b]</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Arial, Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">That too!

Hmmmm... tricky formatting doesn't quote well, does it?

Tell me about it.

Darn, I was so close to getting nominated too. Who is "Quislet"? Maybe next election Quislet, Esq. will get nominated

No I'm Spartacus.

What? Speak up? What’s that? Oh! he said Switzerland!did he

Bum!

that’s ruined that joke then

I'm going to amend a previous statement: I do have something else to say.

In an election? Yes. While the leader position here is largely ceremonial and the election is meant for fun, I think the playing field is expected to be equal. In other words, the election administrator doesn't extend a courtesy to certain people and not others - regardless of relationship or lack thereof.

Actually, you didn't have to contact me. Early in the thread you said: "There were a few others who declined in the last election, but did not appear to have been online in the last couple of days &#8211;- so, to be on the safe side, I have not included them on the list below." I fit both circumstances but I WAS on the list.

Initially I figured that could easily be a list transcription or cut-and-paste gaffe (I know I've done that sort of thing by mistake). But the lengthy responses about your rationale didn't square with "to be on the safe side".

It's very curious that you choose to comment on our previous email communication. I try to keep off-board stuff off the board, but now here it is. We both know what happened, but for anyone else following this: Stu asked me for personal information. I didn't share this information with him. He was upset that I didn't.

Using that as a rationale here...that is sad.

Back to the nonsense.

I'm the Caymans. Send me all your ill-gotten gains for safe-keeping.

Ahem...

So tonight is the final tally?

...of the first round of nominations. Yup!

If you mean ill-gotten "weight" gains, I'd be glad to send them to you. You are so very kind.

You make a presumption as to how and why I may have reacted. Since we never spoke about it, how can you possibly "know" that I was upset for the reason you offer?

What upset me was not, as you erroneously presumed, your decision to share or not to share personal information with me. And I don't know whether you actually believe that yourself, or whether you're just saying that because it makes it easier to justify your appalling behavior on this thread.

Rather, what upsets me is your utter rudeness in responding to the simplest of interactions -- your apparent belief that the rules simply don't apply to you, including the rules of common civility.

But I hardly need to elaborate on your hair-trigger penchant for rudeness. It's self-evident to everyone who's read our posts over the last couple of pages. All of my responses to you have been calm and measured. In contrast, your last few responses to me have been riddled with insinuations and personal attacks on my character.

Normally, I don't respond to tantrums. And if this interaction were occurring through private channels, I would have long since ignored your unwarranted personal attacks. But it's neither fair to me, nor to any of the other people who come to this thread for information about the nominations, to let this sort of childish fit continue -- because whether or not you personally believe what you've said about me is irrelevent. These sorts of comments simply have no place on a congenial board like LW -- and certainly not when the person to whom you're speaking has not leveled such personal attacks at you.

I brought up the e-mail/PM situation solely to explain why I didn't think it would have been fruitful to try to contact you regarding the declination list. No other reason. I described the situation in as objective a manner as possible -- and certainly not in a way that would have suggested anything negative about you. In response, you repeatedly characterize my behavior as "sad" and offer inflammatory opinions of my character that are entirely irrelevant to the issue of nominations.

It boils down to this: for a number of reasons, I didn't contact you and one or two others about the declination list. One of the main reasons I didn't contact you was because you'd specifically asked not to be contacted via e-mail or PM. If our positions were reversed, I have no doubt that you would have chosen not to contact me.

Being in a situation where I had no direct input from you, I had to make an educated guess as to whether or not you'd want to be included on the declination list. I based that presumption on a number of factors that I've already listed -- reset post count, no activity on LW for over a month despite regular activity elsewhere, and forceful declination in the last two elections. But had I come to the opposite conclusion -- leaving you off the list -- that would have involved a presumption as well. I'm not going to waste further time trying to justify something that would have been a lose-lose situation no matter what I did.

And I'm not going to waste further time allowing you to turn something that's fun for everybody into your own personal vendetta. If you want to continue your rude and hurtful tirade, there are plenty of other ways to do it -- just not here. Not any longer.