Charles said:I hereby formally exercise my power of veto.
Anticipated.
Motion to dismiss veto:
Regarding John Hudson's veto of the IOM nomination submitted by
Donovan Rebbechi, for the nominee, "David", on August 4, 2005:
I move that the veto be rejected. There are two separate claims I wish to
file, each of which is sufficient to dismiss the veto.
Claim 1: Hudson's veto is invalid, because he is opposed in principal to the
IOM competition.
Claim 2: Hudson is a troll, hence his veto should not be accepted.
Both of these claims, I believe, also disqualify Hudson from voting
Claim 1: on the IOM competition, Hudson has been on record several times.
Exhibit (a), Hudson initiats the "Idiot of the Month!" thread, criticising
the award.
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.fitness.weights/msg/0c0339beb855e0f9
I submit that someone who has repeatedly criticised the validity of the IOM
competition, has an interest in sabotaging it, and hence is likely to veto
nominations, or vote, in bad faith.
On claim 2, threads like ``killfiling warning - don't "ignore" it'', the
previously cited ``idiot of the Month!'' thread, and most of Hudson's threads
(dramatically terminated with the obligatory exclamation mark) support the
notion that Hudson is a troll. I believe claim 2 to be stronger than claim 1,
in that there is support for it in the IOM charter. The charter demonstrates
a clear intent to prevent trolls from manipulating the vote by making them
eligible for the award. I submit that the framers of this document did not
intend trolls to manipulate the award by actually assuming veto power (or even
voting rights, for that matter)
Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/