Then to eliminate confusion, let me reiterate my initial suggestion:
@Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.
It seems to me that the nominations are not in dispute, nor are the acceptances, but rather only the elections themselves. Therefore, it seems logical and just that any new election for the judicial branch include all candidates from the original elections.
just split the term, CYC, you take the first half, ravensfire, you take the second! that way it's all even it's all fair, or one of you take the first term, the other the second
Originally posted by Donovan Zoi @Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.
Pre-election thread posted. I will consider all candidates to be in this race unless they post otherwise. Though it still isn't fully legal, I am resigned to the fact that we must find some way to resolve this election and that this is the method that the general consensus agrees to. Hopefully nothing like this arises again; I will make sure that the Election Office posts the correct nomination threads next time around, and I will try to help it show more organization to avoid confusing situations.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.