Replies (1)

• @Twig@clew.lol 2026-06-15 01:57

  @ceo_of_monoeye_dating@tsundere.love @AlphaKiloPapa@noauthority.social @Clambino@noauthority.social @Economic_Hitman@noauthority.social @Nicktherat@noauthority.social @Twig@noauthority.social @bonifartius@noauthority.social @eriner@noauthority.social @fkq1q2r2@noauthority.social @gr1mr33p3r@noauthority.social @truthbait@noauthority.social @RatPoster@poa.st @adam@psyopshop.com @Coyote@shitposter.world @jeffcliff@shitposter.world @FaggotTourney@tsundere.love @Wiz@tsundere.love Timeline matters. The votes were counted after the results were announced, and more importantly after both the RatPoster and Truthbait votes had already been presented to me. At that point, I raised specific cases involving conditional voting language, e.g. “I vote for rat if he will…”. CMD is now saying: “he did post it in a response to Twig relatively fast.” But that does not address the core issue of timing and validity. This vote should be expunged on two grounds: It was explicitly written as a conditional vote, not an unconditional selection. RatPoster’s enabling/validating response to monkyyy’s conditional vote occurred after the voting period had already closed, meaning it cannot retroactively validate or regularize the original condition.

  Open ##3330307