?

Log in

No account? Create an account
 
 
22 May 2008 @ 04:49 pm
First ever LiveJournal User-Representative Election  
PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU VOTE!!!

Eligibility
Those eligible to vote in this poll are:
-Users with accounts created before March 11, 2008
-Users who are not using Cyrillic language services (there is a poll for Cyrillic users at lj_election_ru)
-Users who have accounts with validated email addresses


Voting
Users should select their first choice, second choice, and third choice candidates from the drop-down list.

Determining the winner
The poll will be closed at 9:00 p.m. PDT Thursday, May 29, 2008
-If a user has more than 50% of the first-choice vote, that candidate will be declared the winner
-If no user has more than 50% of the first-choice vote, we will begin using an Instant Runoff process. The user with the lowest tally for first-choice vote will be eliminated, and the second choice candidate on those ballots will be substituted as first choice. This process will continue (drop lowest candidate, reassign to next vote, tally again) until any user has more than 50% of the vote.
-If all ballots are exhausted and no candidate has more than 50% of the vote, we will return to the first round and award the election to the candidate with the most 1st choice votes.

Member Term
The new Advisory Board member will be announced by the end of the day on Friday, May 30, 2008 and will begin their one-year term of service on June 1, 2008.

THANK YOU!

Poll #1192389 Election Poll
This poll is closed.

First choice (the user you would most like to have as your representative):

cambler
802(3.1%)
daniidebrabant
206(0.8%)
deathboy
998(3.9%)
fuzzface00
319(1.2%)
imc
177(0.7%)
jameth
5485(21.2%)
jette
234(0.9%)
jj_maccrimmon
180(0.7%)
jmaynard
140(0.5%)
legomymalfoy
9443(36.5%)
lizyd
340(1.3%)
lordandrei
326(1.3%)
lostcosmonaut
220(0.9%)
mrflagg
669(2.6%)
primitivepeople
140(0.5%)
qfemale
335(1.3%)
randomposting
233(0.9%)
rm
2826(10.9%)
sollitaire
206(0.8%)
squeaky19
1120(4.3%)
tango
166(0.6%)
twirlandswirl
156(0.6%)
vichan
1154(4.5%)

Second choice (if your first-choice candidate is eliminated, you would then choose this candidate):

cambler
1190(5.1%)
daniidebrabant
245(1.0%)
deathboy
713(3.0%)
fuzzface00
296(1.3%)
imc
186(0.8%)
jameth
3358(14.3%)
jette
229(1.0%)
jj_maccrimmon
158(0.7%)
jmaynard
289(1.2%)
legomymalfoy
2408(10.3%)
lizyd
279(1.2%)
lordandrei
465(2.0%)
lostcosmonaut
250(1.1%)
mrflagg
770(3.3%)
primitivepeople
222(0.9%)
qfemale
511(2.2%)
randomposting
360(1.5%)
rm
7485(31.9%)
sollitaire
461(2.0%)
squeaky19
997(4.3%)
tango
298(1.3%)
twirlandswirl
275(1.2%)
vichan
1987(8.5%)

Third choice (if your first and second-choice candidates are eliminated, you would then choose this candidate):

cambler
778(3.5%)
daniidebrabant
329(1.5%)
deathboy
885(4.0%)
fuzzface00
288(1.3%)
imc
176(0.8%)
jameth
2899(13.1%)
jette
208(0.9%)
jj_maccrimmon
187(0.8%)
jmaynard
423(1.9%)
legomymalfoy
1709(7.7%)
lizyd
241(1.1%)
lordandrei
476(2.2%)
lostcosmonaut
287(1.3%)
mrflagg
654(3.0%)
primitivepeople
285(1.3%)
qfemale
674(3.1%)
randomposting
510(2.3%)
rm
1914(8.7%)
sollitaire
621(2.8%)
squeaky19
1505(6.8%)
tango
506(2.3%)
twirlandswirl
498(2.3%)
vichan
6003(27.2%)
 
 
Current Mood: pensivepensive
 
 
 
Ju Ju Beejulieannie on May 23rd, 2008 12:16 am (UTC)
Also,
[Error: Irreparable invalid markup ('<ljunited">') in entry. Owner must fix manually. Raw contents below.]

Also, <ljunited"> censors some candidates and endorses a candidate who supports censorship. I think that's a serious breach of trust.
mokie: wonkymokie on May 24th, 2008 05:53 am (UTC)
I've seen a bit of the censorship, but not their candidate's support of censorship. Point me at it, please?
Ju Ju Bee: sandyjulieannie on May 24th, 2008 06:23 am (UTC)
In this post here rm is shown to have banned jameth from her account. She claims it is due to a master Frienditto ban list but several commenters point out they are on that list and are not banned and no response has been given to this concern. Also, a community that endorsed rm before the nominations were over banned jameth as well. I get that people don't like him but preventing another candidate to talk or defend himself in a journal and then citing the desire for free speech just makes me think the logic is a little backwards. Your mileage may vary.
Michaelnebris on May 25th, 2008 08:58 am (UTC)
Your definition of censorship is saying defecation as a form of self expression and I threw you out of my house for shitting on the carpet.

Of course, if you actually had done such, I would have simply shot you instead. =)

~M~

Edited at 2008-05-25 09:02 am (UTC)
mokie: politics electionmokie on May 25th, 2008 06:02 pm (UTC)
Seeing him shut out of discussion and debate because they didn't consider him a worthy candidate was pretty damn distasteful, and not a very good example of lj being united. That said, it's not a public forum, but her own semi-public sandbox, and she does have the right to regulate its players to some degree. If she doesn't want to let him play, that's her own private business.

On a tangent, I also think bringing 'free speech' in regards to the business that is LJ is either willfully delusional or purposefully misleading. So, yeah, I admit my bias.
laura_holt_pilaura_holt_pi on May 27th, 2008 07:17 am (UTC)
Jameth is a troll, as are many of his supporters. I know you have been trolling a few of his detractors too.
Ju Ju Beejulieannie on May 27th, 2008 08:05 am (UTC)
Please show me where I have trolled. I have always engaged in a serious and careful discourse of the election. Are you mad because I have not insulted people and thrown casual accusations as other parties have? I just see no point in communicating like you do.
Serena: offend youmagyarok_saman on May 24th, 2008 10:38 am (UTC)
I think you and your friends need a refresher in what the First Amendment is really all about.

Start here.

Notice the operative word: Government. Government is forbidden from restricting free speech.

Even so, there are exceptions, most notably hate speech and speech which may incite a riot.

PRIVATE PARTIES have NEVER been held to the First Amendment and that includes corporations.

The way you talk, you seem to think it would be okey-dokey for some lunatic to smash down your front door just so they could stand in the middle if your living room and blather about anything they'd like.

Saying that people support censorship simply because they ban trolls from their journals and communities is ludicrous. It's their "virtual living room" and they have that right.
Desidono: Intrigue: BSG: Sleeping with the Enemydesidono on May 24th, 2008 01:54 pm (UTC)
Yes dear, we understand the first amendment. But if you decide to run for a public office, even a private virtual one, and you want to limit discussion and other candidates are not doing that, what would such a thing be called?

Personally, I've seen one troll so far this election and it's insomnia. Then again, he's not technically running... just very vocal about the candidate he and his puppet community support.

SCARY SHIT THERE.
Serenamagyarok_saman on May 24th, 2008 11:02 pm (UTC)
What I find scarier is a candidate who is in it "for the lulz" having his army of supporters flood journals and communities then crying censorship when his very troll-like followers are prevented from overrunning said journals and communities.

I'm not your "dear". You and your friends are too quick to cry censorship as a defense to trolling. Y'all needed a big reminder about what censorship of free speech REALLY is.

insomnia is not a troll. He created the ljunited community for the stated purposes. He has every right to ban anyone who does not support what the information in the profile states. That is NOT censorship as defined by the First Amendment. It's troll control.

You are just as entitled to block anyone and everyone from your personal journal and any community you create - and I'll bet you've found yourself having to do such at least once if you've been here for any time.

There is free speech, and then there are those abusing the right of free speech just to spew and vomit all over others without wanting to accept the responsibility for their actions, or the reactions thereof.

It's called setting boundaries which is something trolls don't like. That's bully for them; let them create their own journals and communities for their spew. THAT is where the right of free speech comes in - they can spew all they want on their OWN turf.
Desidono: Struggle: Gonads and Strifedesidono on May 25th, 2008 05:10 am (UTC)
Well aren't you just precious!

I know that you're not "my" dear. I didn't claim ownership, nor would I want to. Ever. Normally I'd refrain from saying such a thing to someone I don't know, but I want to make sure I'm setting some clear boundaries for your since you seem to be into that sort of thing while also believing that I want you to be mine.

I don't. Really. Just making sure you know that.

As for censorship, there are numerous different definitions floating about and I apparently have a less governmental view of it than you do. Which is fine. In this arena at least, you're allowed to be as wrong as you want to be, which appears to be often enough to not take anything you say seriously.

Also, I definitely am not crying right now, not even from laughter, but trust me, I am highly amused. :)

Thanks for playing, we have some lovely parting gifts for you.
(no subject) - magyarok_saman on May 25th, 2008 08:41 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - desidono on May 25th, 2008 03:48 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nebris on May 25th, 2008 08:53 am (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - desidono on May 25th, 2008 03:50 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - desidono on May 25th, 2008 04:12 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - nebris on May 25th, 2008 05:21 pm (UTC) (Expand)
(no subject) - desidono on May 25th, 2008 06:12 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Anger Download - nebris on May 25th, 2008 06:43 pm (UTC) (Expand)
Travestia Le Chattravestia on May 29th, 2008 11:48 am (UTC)
insomnia isn't a troll; he's an opportunistic poseur, who hopes to use ljunited to reclaim the significance that he lost when he was fired by brad.
Desidonodesidono on May 29th, 2008 02:04 pm (UTC)
I agree with opportunistic poseur wholeheartedly.

(edited to close my italic tag)

Edited at 2008-05-29 02:05 pm (UTC)
Ju Ju Bee: drinksjulieannie on May 24th, 2008 08:29 pm (UTC)
So remind me again how rm plans to extend the first amendment rights on Livejournal then. Because I know what the first amendment is (and how it is the government who is the one that cannot restrict it) but in her LJ she implies she's pro-free speech While as a private corporation LJ has the right to decide what type of content it will and won't allow, my argument is for the broadest range of speech permissible under the laws of California (where LJ is incorporated). This level of free speech should be the right of all LJ users, regardless of location or topic. Political speech needs to be protected. Religious speech needs to be protected. Creative speech needs to be protected. If it's legal speech it should be permissible on LJ. but by restricting speech on her journal, she is implying she can't handle it any more than Livejournal can which makes me unlikely to believe any of her campaign promises.
Serenamagyarok_saman on May 24th, 2008 11:40 pm (UTC)
Here again, you are choosing to stretch a principle to suit your own agenda.

Nobody on LJ is expected to HAVE to put up with troll-like behavior on their own journal - not even those who are running for the Advisory Board position.

Sometimes, there is a fine line between what is considered "legal" speech and what is considered outright harassment, slander, and ridicule. rm has every right to prevent the latter, as does every user on the LiveJournal service.

You aren't, for instance, suggesting that you should be allowed to go to rm's residence, force open her front door, and stand in her living room shouting invectives and ridicule, are you? Because that's what you're suggesting she should allow in the virtual living room of her own journal.

It's the stretching of the right of free speech like this which really bends my nose out of shape and the only time I see it is from people who don't like it when someone has, and enforces, healthy boundaries.
(no subject) - journeyto on May 27th, 2008 12:55 am (UTC) (Expand)