An attempt at mediation by Scott Little has failed because of lack of respons from RC14 and RC17.
Regarding the protest filed by Bob Seaborn, RC17:
BS> Is it my fault that that MY keyboard and video doees not BS> support non-english characters?
1) The sysop is responsible for what his system injects into the network. So if this presumed non-support of those characters results in errors, then yes, the sysop is responsible.
2) Although it is not in the ASCII character set, characters with a diaresis /are/ part of te English characters set, notably in some English names: Emily Brontë, Noël Coward and the constellation of Boötes. The fact that the diaresis is usually omitted in US English does not change the fact that the o with diaresis IS part of the character set used in English.
BS> Furthermore, after thinking about it, I do note that the rules of BS> this echo, as posted by yourself dated 19 November 2013 states that BS> the language of the echo is English:
3) The fact that the language for discussion is English, does not exclude the use of names that are not English. If it were, names as Delahaye (French) and Dossche (Dutch) would also have to be banned.
4) The use of non ASCII characters in messages is a Fidonet standard laid down in FTS-5003. While it is understandable that sysops who have no use for other languages than US English have not installed translation tables for non-ASCII character sets, this can never be used as an excuse for a mangled vote.
5) The claim that the name of the candidate on the form was changed to "Bjerk" by the software and the software alone, has no credi- bility. The vertical lines were all in place. This was deliberate.
Regarding the protest by Ross Cassel RC18:
His own vote was processed without problems and to his staisfaction. he has little reason to complain.
He has however provided some input on the votes of the two RCs that cast a vote for "Bjerk" and so have some others.
Regarding the use of names of candidates not exactly as they are in the nodelist:
1) It is common practise that sysops do not always use the exact name as nodelisted in their messages. Some use short forms like "Bob" for "Robert", some use "middle names". Like Robert "Jame" Clay.
2) It has been custom to list the candidates with the names they present in their own messages or the name as posted by the nomi- nator. The name may or may not be exactly the same as that in the nodelist. The sysop listed as RJ Clay has been on the list of candidates as Robert "Jame" Clay since 2011. No one ever made an issue out of that.
Regarding identifying the candidate by the node number:
1) We vote for people, not numbers. The node number is just there so that everyone can quickly check if the candidate fulfills the requirement of being the sysop of a nodelisted system. It may also help when there are two candidates with the same or a similar name.
"The intentions of the voter were clear":
1) Yes, there is little doubt that Bob Seaborn intended to cast a "no" vote for Björn Felten. But when we start going by intentions, there is also little doubt that he intended to do more than that. He intended to add an insult. This was not just a typo, or replacing a non ASCII character with something the software could handle like "oe" or "o". This was a deliberate name change with the intent to insult. Such actions should have consequences.
"The rules are not clear"
1) The instructions for the voters were clear enough: Take the form and put crosses in the "yes" or "no" spots. It did not say "and change the names of the candidates to an insult you see fit".
It is common practise in most countries that changing anything other than putting marks at the indicated spots, invalidates the vote. In my own country it invalidates the vote entirely and there is no second chance. Had I followed this local custom, I would have dis- missed BS's vote for all the candidates, not just the vote for "Bjerk". So the "why should he risk that the vote for his own nominee was dismissed?" has to be answered with: I do not know, but he certainly /did/ take that risk.
When I was a school boy, it sometimes happened that one of us pulled a prank. Itching powder on the teacher's seat, a stink bomb that went off in chemistry class. That sort of thing. And then when caught, we accepted the consequences. We took the punishment and at the end of the day, we counted our marbles and moved on. We didn't fight it out to the supreme court!
There is no candidate named "Bjerk", therefore votes for "Bjerk" are dismissed as invalid.
Regarding recasting votes:
I refer to what happened in the 2010 election when I had the evil thought of considering it when Björn Felten asked for a recast of his vote. Let me take just this one from the many reactions:
BS> For what it's worth, I fully agree. Once a vote is posted, and BS> acknowledged, it MUST stand as posted. No second thoughts, no BS> changing!
All the arguments against allowing a recast that were forwarded in 2010 still apply. Where do we draw the line? Do not open this box of Pandorra!
Some have argued that there is a difference between correcting an error and changing the vote. It is however just putting another label on what is the same thing: an atempt to influence the outcome after one has cast one's vote.
Regarding the protest filed by Janis Kracht, ZC1:
Janis Kracht is not a candidate or a voter. As such she is not directly involved in the election. Also, ZCs have no special standing in this. There is nothing in either the election rules or P4 that says they may act, speak or protest on behalf of an RC. Also no request was received from Jon Justvig to the effect that Janis Kracht be allowed to act as his proxy in this election. Therefore the protest filed by Janis Kracht is dismissed. From the multiple votes cast by Jon Justvig only the first is accepted for the same reason that only the first vote of Bob Seaborn was accepted.
