Liveblogging the EAC: Frivolity Edition

8:52Sarina has no further comments. The meeting is over.

8:49 – Sonia now wants this sent back to another electoral body. I don’t understand – she’s saying that the committee is biased, but she wants it referred back to them? Is there another body that I don’t know about?

8:46 – Things seem to be drawing to a close. Sonia made the major mistake in this appeal in saying that major violations occurred. If you want to invalidate something, you don’t use the MOST OUTRAGEOUS ALLEGATIONS POSSIBLE! “Sarina Rehal eats babies,” is pretty analogous to what Sonia is claiming.

8:44 – Things can’t be both ‘not considered’ and ‘ignored’. To ignore something, you have to consider it.

8:40 – This is getting AWESOME! It’s Judge Judy meets the AMS! The Chief Justice is driving semi-trucks through Sonia’s case.

8:37 – I’m feeling a level of wicked intent myself at the moment.

8:35 – The Chief Justice states that Sonia has to prove some level of wicked intent.  He feels that the committee spent too much time on this complaint.

8:33 – Sonia doesn’t know if the original Johannes complaint was actually filed. (ed – well, then there really isn’t any point to having this meeting. if there was no complaint filed, the deadline has passed, and no further action can be taken)

“You’re arguing semantics. If you were to take this to Court, it would just get tossed.” -Chief Justice Donald McIntyre

8:31 – The Chief Justice is trying to figure out where things went off the rails. He wants to know whether people want more or less information.

8:30 – Sarina is defending herself. Sarina has received threatening text messages during the course of this campaign, as well as blocked number calls.

8:26 – A good summation of the cases is that the Ale-Tristan-Blake Appeals are all about Slating. The Durgan-Purewal Appeals are all about bias.

“You have information coming out the Yin-Yang. The fact that I was quoted on a blog from this morning is just mind boggling to me.” -Chief Justice Donald McIntyre

8:21 – Sarina is sounding angrier than I’ve ever seen her. She needs to calm down. The Chief Justice kind of reigns her in with “you don’t have to defend yourself here”.

8:18 – Sarina responds:

  • The statement that Blake never had the people in his office is not true.
  • Blake got the witnesses email, facebook, and exchanged messages with the witness. It is extremely unlikely that this Blake could not know Wladamir.
  • Sarina stands by ‘questionable biases’ statement. We did not elaborate because we didn’t want to call Blake ‘inconsistent’.

8:16 – NO! I will not apologize. I am not convinced that the witnesses were not biased. In fact, I am fairly convinced that they were biased.

8:14 – Sonia wants Johannes disqualified, and a by-election should be held (that’s not what would happen, Sonia knows this, or should anyway). Sonia would take the position. Now Sonia wants an apology from the Elections Committee and the Media, to the people who were witnessed.

8:12 – And, were back on the question of ‘questionable biases’.

8:09 – Sonia basically says that only the witnesses against Johannes should be considered credible. The witnesses who provided alibis should not be considered credible.

8:07 – If Blake, the complainant, didn’t want to appeal, why should Sonia be allowed to?

8:03 – The Justice wants to focus on the one verifiable false statement, which is that Jeremy and Sonia were contacted by Sarina regarding slating.

8:02 – The Justice explains that Elections Committee cannot disseminate contact information, with reference to the people who were witnesses.

8:00 – They were told by the people polling that these same people were going door to door. So, now were on … fourth hand information.

7:57 – The frivolity of this complaint disgusts me. I am disgusted.

7:53 – Sonia’s Allegations:

  • Blake never filed a complaint, and should not be referred to as a complainant. If this is true, then WHAT ARE WE DOING HERE!?!
  • Blake was not friends with Wladamir.
  • The VFMA and EA were not in Blake’s office when testimony was provided. Provokes shocked look from Sarina and Mitch.
  • Sarina never spoke to Sonia about complaints over the phone. Then she admits that it happened in the office. Ummm… the point is that you did speak to her.
  • Certain statements in the report were misinterpreted or misrepresented.

7:51 – Sonia’s issue is with the investigation of the Cookiegate incident. She says that there is a lot of falsified information in the response to Ed Durgan’s complaint.

7:49 – OH NO! Durgan is representing Sonia!?! I thought we were done with stratospheric bullshit this evening.

7:48 – Now, its time for everybody’s favorite game show “Grasping at Straws!”, with today’s contestant, Sonia Purewal!

7:44 – Oh, we’re done. Thank God. We’re not going through all the other complaints. The Chief Justice is going to go look at the bylaws of the SLFS and make a judgment.

7:44 – Internally, if you don’t follow your procedures for nominations, and then we run the election, that’s not our responsibility. Hmm, maybe we are going to end up with a SLFS by-election. I think this would probably be a fairly foolish thing to ask for, as I would expect there are going to be some more candidates in this election. Kno to the Knoll would have a field day!

7:42 – The Chief Justice is Donald McIntyre.

7:41 – I’m not following what Bahram is saying particularly well. I don’t get what his argument is.

7:35 – Sarina states that she does not have the authority to rule on how SLFS nominations were done. Aaron Sihota was not a member of the committee, never attended a meeting, and his role was limited to the correspondence to all the candidates. Aaron was denied having a poster at polling booths, because there was not a fair dissemination of information.

7:32 – I would find this less aggravating if Bahram and Ed could bring forward a coherant argument.

7:30 – I don’t want to retype all of this. Just check out the Adventures in Nonsense!

7:26 – There is an SLFS appeal. I dont think that this committee has the jurisdiction to deal with this.

7:24 – Sarina is responding. The Judge seems to be wrapping things up, and moving along to point two. Oh, christ, its all of the stupid appeals.

7:22 – If I were to bet, I would say that the Judge is not convinced that the committee was wrong in saying that bias was present.

“What I need you to do is point out where my logic is wrong.” -Chief Justice

7:17 – They still seems to be claiming that if someone uses a laptop to get one vote, they should automatically be disqualified. They also keep claiming that people could go door to door.

7:15 – Well, Bahram seems to have zeroed in on something.

“Sometimes they decide that witnesses are biased. Sometimes they were not.” -Bahram Norouzi

Well, yeah, but… those are the only two options. Ooh, another gem:

“It is the responsibility of the Elections Committee to be partial.” -Bahram Norouzi

And another one:

“If someone says 50 to 800, you can’t say that they’re making an estimate of between 50 to 800.” -Bahram Norouzi

7:11 – Question Period! Bahram is … not asking a question. Ok, well, we’re getting around to it now. What grounds did you make the judgment that witnesses were biased? Interestingly, the Chief Justice answers, and mentions that the role of the committee is to make the decisions that they make, and why there was a difference between the level of activity in the Elections Committee.

7:08 – Sarina also mentions that the VFMs have different regulations, and do not fall under the jurisdiction of slates.

7:06 – Bahram asks why Sarina didn’t disqualify Sonia and Jeremy for endorsing one another. Sarina says that it was in reference to the changes that happened due to Condorcet, and because it was an isolated incident.

6:55 – Sarina’s response:

  • The chain of events was completely different in the Johannes complaint from the Blake complaint. We had no evidence, so we had to do an investigation. In the Blake case, we had evidence.
  • The Committee didn’t want to rule until they heard from the witnesses. Johannes had an alibi for the possible times. The witnesses were making unreliable statements – apparently there was a lineup of people at the laptop.
  • The ‘interrogation at length’ that Durgan was referring to took the form of an email. The range of votes given was between 50 and 800 votes. (ed – One of the reasons that people don’t walk around with laptops is that it is a profoundly ineffective way of getting votes. The committee tried this (new information) and got four votes in two and a half hours.)
  • Lots of complaints were submitted that were dismissed right away. Sarina said that she spoke to Sonia about slating.

6:53 – Bahram is talking, and I don’t get why. He’s talking about how some less involved members of the community were ‘humiliated’ by the Elections Committee when they called them biased. The Justice says that there needs to be proof of this, or this will be inadmissible.

6:49 – Ed Durgan is claiming is that the Committee should have acted against the RBF “Slate”.

6:47 – Ooh, it’s me! Apparently, I am a slate! One of the things that really pisses me off about Durgan is that he is willing to use truncated statements from the blog to prove a point. If you take a look at our info website, it states that the RBF was a slate. This was, however, omitted:

In that spirit, the RBT was founded for the first VFM contest in 2007, the new RBF was founded in 2008.

6:46 – General formula for Durgan complaints:

Elections Committee Takes an Action = Bias

“The Elections Committee went to great length to discredit eyewitness accounts.” -Ed Durgan

6:43 – Why exactly is Durgan able to appeal the Presidential race? This is a giant waste of Society resources.

6:41 – Durgan charges that the Committee was biased in the way that they applied the rules. Apparently, the rulings that stated that Jeremy and Sonia were contacted with regards to slating were not true. Jeremy corroborates that allegation.

6:38 – Ed Durgan is going through the complaints, and also is going to be presenting a remedy sought. The first complaint is regarding bias in the elections committee. There is a difference in the way the complaints against Alex and the complaints against Blake were handled. Ed wants by-elections called for VP Academic and President, or to dismiss all the complaints brought to the elections committee and apply the poll results.

6:35 – Liveblogging has been temporarily suspended until the end of the session. I will be posting things at the end of the committee meeting. Apparently my blog comes very close to a tape recorded transcript. Oh well, sorry folks.

6:33 – Things get off to a roaring start with the spelling of peoples names.

The meeting started a bit late, so its half an hour past the original start time and we are just getting underway. Anyway, LIVE FROM 266J, its SHITstorm ’09! There are a couple of observers here – Mitch and Joel from the Elections Committee, Jeremy Wood, Corey Lerman  and Kyle Warwick. Bahram Norouzi is here as Ed Durgan’s representative.


4 Responses to “Liveblogging the EAC: Frivolity Edition”

  1. 2 Kommander Keg
    February 23, 2009 at 11:45 pm

    Pure awesome. I wish I had been there, but I had important stuff to attend too (read: didn’t want to waste me precious keg time).


  2. 3 Fred Curgan
    February 24, 2009 at 3:03 pm

    Whatever, Mr. “Keg”, whoever you are.

    -Fred Curgan

  3. February 10, 2014 at 6:48 pm

    Всем перила в Самаре,перила из нержавейки самара,ограждения в самаре,ограждения из нержавейкиперила в самаре! Наш сайт .

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Voter Funded Media

Blogathon Button
February 2009
« Jan   Mar »

RSS RBT Twitter

  • An error has occurred; the feed is probably down. Try again later.
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 2.5 Canada License, except for the exclusive commercial use of participating in the Voter Funded Media competition.

%d bloggers like this: