[mr1303]

What's the difference? Apart from whether or not the abstainer is (should be) replaced or not, which as I said in my previous post, was an issue that I was not commenting on.

If your argument is that those who abstained should be replaced by someone else, that is a fair point. I do not have enough information on the case (or more specifically on the USBF rules and regulations etc) to comment on the feasibility of this.

If your argument is that people should always vote in situations regardless of other circumstances then I disagree.

Mike said the following:

"Matt I was just thinking of this situation.. Say one of these women was your daughter....Fully disclose this but vote...do not abstain......

Voting for your daughter is fair.....it is not unfair or unjust...

If people do not like it....kick me out of office....."

As far as I can tell, Mike's view is that a juror who is related to the defendent (or victim) would be a suitable juror. It is my view that he or she would not be.

[sceptic]

People on a comittee should always vote on the things that concern the comittee, if they do not, then what is the point of being on the comittee

I just find it hard to accept, that someone who cant make a fair decision based on the facts is on a comittee

I have worked with lots of people that make decisions as soon as a hard one comes up they are off like a shot, life is full of hard decisions, if you are not prepared to do what is right then I think that shows lack of character.

The trouble with abstainers is that the decision that gets made if it turns bad, can then hide behind the abstain and desolve all responsibility and this is what my main gripe is, you see it all the time with politicians and comittee members....

A judge will stand down from a case if he or she is in conflict or personally involved, but they are replaced, I have no issue with this at all

I agree in the post why Jan Martell and the other lady abstained, I just have issue with the reason she had to abstain, in a complaint, she should never have been involved at all, even I know that and I am not a lawyer, she should never have been on the comittee dealing with complaints at all as they are the next point of the procedure and can not be involved

as for the guy at the end, he is letting the comittee down, what sort of team do the USA run. they are technically holding him to ransom, do not vote or we will make your wifes life difficult, because this seems to be the issue that effected him


sounds like cowardice to me

[sceptic]

Quote

As far as I can tell, Mike's view is that a juror who is related to the defendent (or victim) would be a suitable juror. It is my view that he or she would not be.

I sort of agree even though this makes me a hypocrite, but then I think the justice system sucks also

[jtfanclub]

mr1303, on Oct 25 2007, 02:02 PM, said:

As far as I can tell, Mike's view is that a juror who is related to the defendent (or victim) would be a suitable juror. It is my view that he or she would not be.

Jurors are different- they are random people who are not made responsible for anything.

I would say that absoutely, a judge should be able to rule on a relative who is a defendant. If they can't, they aren't much of a judge.

[jikl]

I abstained because I am sick of the subject and really don't want to read any more of it so there is no way I can make an informed opinion on something I don't care about anymore. Much like many elections I guess

Sean

[mycroft]

I did the right thing - didn't abstain, just didn't vote. And typed instead.

Seriously, though, look at the ACBL board of director minutes. There's *always* a few abstentions. Mostly for conflict of interest issues. (side note: in the last municipal election, I abstained from voting for public school commissioner for my ward. I have and will have absolutely no stake in the matter, and had no way of making an effective judgement between the players. What random vote would have been better than letting a plurality of people with a stake or an opinion decide?)

What would have happened had this been the Bermuda Bowl USA 1? Not that they would do this, of course...but if it had?

Does anybody want the NPC of the team voting on anything to do with that? If she votes no, then she's "just playing favourites, it would have been a sanction if one member hadn't been married to the president of the USBF" - especially if it were the deciding vote. If, after that, there ever is a sanction from the USBF, later, for anything, I guarantee there would be a lawsuit. However, if she votes yes, then, well, I wouldn't want to be her (or her husband) for the next few months...possibly years, if it led to "you can't trust her, so don't hire/play with either of 'em". Plus, of course, the feelings/rumours of "well, she obviously couldn't vote 'no' (for all the reasons above), so she had to vote yes, and probably (tried to, if the sanction carried) rigged the vote to make sure that her vote didn't affect the result." that would follow forever.

That's called a conflict of interest, folks, and there's a reason why rules about conflict of interest are written into most, if not all, judgment board by-laws (sometimes by inference. Here's what Robert's Rules of Order FAQ list has to say about it under Robert's:

Under the rules in RONR, no member can be compelled to refrain from voting simply because it is perceived that he or she may have some "conflict of interest" with respect to the motion under consideration. If a member has a direct personal or pecuniary (monetary) interest in a motion under consideration not common to other members, the rule in RONR is that he should not vote on such a motion, but even then he or she cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, l. 15-25.] emphasis in original, from http://www.robertsrules.com/faq.html#9. Note that the WBF Executive uses Robert's Rules as specified in their By-Laws.)

I wouldn't vote for someone who voted for something that was in his or her personal interest over the interest of his constituency or organization, as appropriate (of course, that means that were I a United States Citizen, I'd have to vote for Fritz the Cat, I guess - even Mickey Mouse has done a lot of things that were clearly conflict of interest).

(as a side note, even though it doesn't mean much, I always vote in elections I am eligible for. I know I have no power (especially in Alberta), but what little I have is being taken away from me, and I won't actively help them do that. However, there's an idea in Ontario that I think is a good one: you can refuse your ballot. You show up, do all the things to vote, take your ballots, and hand them back. The fact that a person did this must be counted, and must be in the totals. This is a way of saying "nobody's worth voting for" that is unambiguous and doesn't get counted as "too lazy to vote".)

Michael.

[han]

I voted for "I have zero bridge credentials", but I wish I had voted for cherdano and gnome. Not that I read what they wrote in the other thread, but it is quite rare that they are on the same side of an argument so I bet they are right.

[jdonn]

Why am I not surprised that "Cherdano/Gnome" are tied with "0 bridge credentials"

[Aberlour10]

Necro of the week. This excellent poll deserves definitely more votes.

[gwnn]

All replies are written in bold. scary.

[kenberg]

Ah yes, maybe I sort of recall.
Some idiots used an awards ceremony to make a political statement and some other idiots made a big deal out of it. That was it, wasn't it?

[semeai]

gwnn said:

All replies are written in bold. scary.

And now they're all in italics too?

[semeai]

[quote name='[i]someName'[/i]]theQuote[/quote]

is what did that, or the same with b instead of i for bold

[helene_t]

I notice an increase in the vote for "I am not sufficiently informed ...", "I have zero..." and "I don't understand ...". This confirms what have been observed in other recent threads, namely that BBF posters get more and more stupid as time progresses. It would be nice to have time stamps on the individual votes so that such a hypothesis could be tested scientifically.

[gwnn]

scary stuff...

[hotShot]

Let dead threads rest in peace.

[Free]

Here's one for you: how can someone vote "abstain" when the question is "why don't you vote"?

[babalu1997]

Free, on 2011-September-08, 06:00, said:

Here's one for you: how can someone vote "abstain" when the question is "why don't you vote"?

because the bidding went

pass by me- 1 spade by opp- dbl by partner- 3sapdes by opp
pass by me- pass by opp- dbl by partner-- all pass

i jach fifth spades, i apssed, he said i was an idiot

this game is not for me

[onoway]

Polls in these forums always stump me as on my computer all I ever get is the bare poll, never any info at all as to what the question under discussion is or what the poll is actually about. Only way to try to figure it out is to read all the posts and make assumptions. Computers and I have an uneasy relationship so there's probably a button somewhere that connects to the actual question but I've never found it.

I'd be surprised if I was the only BBOer with a computer that does this, which might explain why many of us never vote on polls, even those we might actually have an opinion about.

[ggwhiz]

I'm a Druid and worship shrubs and hedges. We don't vote.