Baby Roaster Excluded From Ballot! ROCK THE VOTE!
Zazazu:
Quote from: Phaenoh on 2009 February 26, 00:12:55
Every single one of them are people complaining asking why isn't the baby roaster on the vote.
Not true. I was calling a point of order on HP. HP stated that the baby roaster didn't benefit children. I argued that, actually, when the Rule of Four was violated, neighbors were invited to partake of the roasted baby fat so that they, too, would face the reality of their place in the universe. A few children were present and they had both an educational and nutritional experience.
phyllis_p:
I may be far too innocent, but I thought the comments were funny and made tongue-in-cheek. I know mine was. I can understand the deletion, though. The focus was being taken away from the items up for vote, and there was potential for it turning ugly if someone (from either site) got a stick up their ass about it and went into attack mode.
J. M. Pescado:
Vote anyway! Show them that the will of the people cannot be denied! Even the deleted post still stands as a record of the original vote, and accomplishes exactly what they didn't want.
Aggie:
Your excuse doesn't ring true, Phaenoh. If write-in votes aren't counted in the actual poll, then they should just be ignored and not deleted. Use the actual poll results if you want to get technical about results. Deleting innocent comments simply because they mention something else smacks of pettiness.
Marhis:
I guess they were deleted because they're putting up for discussion an arbitral decision, not because they don't work as a vote.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page