hellounicorns2 wrote:

AFNNetworkK12 wrote:

THAT SPA vote thing smiley made

Yeah we’ll probably use that.

Sorry, you have to wait 60 second between posts

GrahamSH wrote:

915 posts down, 85 to go

smileycreations15 wrote:

will a vote pass to use the new system? EVERYTHING WILL BE UNBIASED. I PROMISE.

LotusLavender wrote:

I'd rather vote here on scratch and have it run by the owner or president so that we can always be 100% sure people are themselves and have someone with the authority to make the decision concerning if someone can vote.

LotusLavender wrote:

I'd rather vote here on scratch and have it run by the owner or president so that we can always be 100% sure people are themselves and have someone with the authority to make the decision concerning if someone can vote.

LotusLavender wrote:

I'd rather vote here on scratch and have it run by the owner or president so that we can always be 100% sure people are themselves and have someone with the authority to make the decision concerning if someone can vote.

GrahamSH wrote:

Can I please have a list of all active judges participating in this case

hellounicorns2 wrote:

GrahamSH wrote:

Can I please have a list of all active judges participating in this case

Could all active judges please respond to this so I know how many are active?

hellounicorns2 wrote:

GrahamSH wrote:

Can I please have a list of all active judges participating in this case

Could all active judges please respond to this so I know how many are active?

sti_scratch wrote:

AFNNetworkK12 v. Shop Partnership Association

Plaintiff: AFNNetworkK12
Witnesses for the Plaintiff:

Defendant: Shop Partnership Association
Witnesses for the Defendant:

Jury: All judges employed by the Association

Co49 (Judge), in favor of Defendant: I consider this case to be a normal lawsuit rather than an official royal commission. The accusation is against how the election was carried out, not the actions of the president.

On the 24th of June 2019, AFNNetworkK12 filed a lawsuit against the SPA, suggesting that preventing non-members from voting in the presidential election was against the rules. {1} {2}

The new laws, some of which are about representatives and voting, were brought up but should be discounted. They were passed on the 27th of May, well before voting started. It should be noted the section 2 was passed unanimously. {3} {4}

List of current laws surrounding elections and voting:
1.3: Representatives can vote in all elections
2.10: Shop representatives may be asked to vote in elections or votes.
9.1 People in new jobs will be able to vote.

In my opinion the rules states that judges, non-shop members and representatives, even if it is not very clear. I assume the ‘new jobs’ extend to non-shop members and judges.

While it has been convention that only judges, non-shop members and representatives may vote, this should not be relied upon when making judgements about a case. Also, shown in the description “Non-shop members: Don't want to be a judge? That's perfectly fine! You can still be a part of this association! You will help out by voting and promoting fairness! You must help out with at least on of the following: profile notifying people, checking shops for activity or the NSNP”

Due to the new representative system which had not been sorted out yet, it was decided that the presidential election would operate on a one vote per shop rule, and this is allowed according to law 2.10.1. This appears perfectly fine. {5}

In conclusion, I find that the SPA carried out the election according to the law and that there is no need for a re-run of the election. However, I do have some recommendations on how to avoid a dispute like this in the future. The laws should be changed to clarify exactly who should be able to vote. Non-shop members should be listed on the first post. Another problem was that votes were tallied even if invalid. To prevent this, voters in the future should state how they are a member of the SPA:

Future Voter wrote:

I am voting for candidate A, as a representative of shop A

Future Voter wrote:

I am voting for candidate A, as a non-shop member of the SPA (position name)

I welcome any feedback on my conclusion. If more evidence is submitted or I am corrected, I am very happy to edit this and reconsider my conclusion. Pending this, I find no wrongdoing.

sti_scratch (Judge), in favor of Defendant: The Laws do not specify which, if any, non-members of the Association are eligible to vote in presidential elections. However, this page, titled “Our voting system,” states that “our member system is up for decision by our community. Please let us know how you think we should do it (orders, members or equal representation.)”

Therefore, I believe that the community shall vote on whether MClovers' vote is valid.

Thank you.

smileycreations15 (Judge), in favor of Defendant:
Supporting facts:
The election is fair, though a re-vote can be made.
There was no explicit note about everyone being able to vote.
There was no law about everyone being able to vote.
The ‘representatives only’ has been used in the last election

Notes:
I agree with Co49 about the tallied if invalid situation.
To prevent this, we can use an online voting system like this.
You just need a list of all people who will be able to vote.

Conclusion: A re-vote should be made with any new candidates and optionally MClovers signing up as a non-shop member or leave it as is.

sti_scratch (Judge), providing an opinion on smileycreations15's opinion:
Really. If it's fair, you don't need a re-vote. You are just trying to make the Association use your online voting system, which wouldn't work well due to the Association's lack of a list of members.

NYCDOT (Judge), to sti_scratch:
@sti_scratch Was evidence ever given?

sti_scratch (Judge), to NYCDOT:
AFNNetworkK12 provided arguments which we're basing this trial on.

NYCDOT, in favor of Plaintiff:
As Associate Judge I now believe that the removal of MClovers vote was in fact invalid.

Reasons
- In the section “Our voting system,” which is maintained by the owner hellounicorns2, it states “Our member system is up for decision by our community.” It never specifies what “our community” means for the SPA, meaning that MClovers is part of the community as they are a scratch community member.
- Under law 2.10.2, it states “2.10.2: The drafter of the policy will decide whether the vote is passed via representatives or shops.” This means that hellounicorns2, who was running the election, could choose whether or not an entire shop votes on a law or the representatives of a shop vote on a law. This does not include elections. It also does not say “including but not limited to” in front of “representatives or shops,” even if hellounicorns2 include elections along with laws.


ONE THING: EVEN THOUGH AFN IS EMPLOYED BY ME, THIS HAD NO EFFECT ON MY DECISION IN THIS CASE.

smileycreations15 wrote:

Who selects the head judge?

hellounicorns2 wrote:

Okay, as the case is closed laws can now be proposed and passed!

smileycreations15 wrote:

Who selects the head judge?

GrahamSH, the head judge.

8.3.2: The second stage is approval by the Head Department
8.3.2.1: The head department consists of the Owner, President, Vice President
8.3.3: The third stage is judge approval
8.3.3.1: The judges will only overturn things if they are extremely unlawful