The Sicatoka
-
Posts
36,600 -
Joined
-
Days Won
575
Everything posted by The Sicatoka
-
These two three finalist hi-jinx leaves Kelley and his minions (co-conspirators?) open to such theories and acusations.
-
That almost sounds naughty.
-
I recently chatted with someone who is reasonably familiar with Twamley. Their take: There's no point in defining a process if you're simply going to ignore it. Kelley's just doing what he always does: Manipulating the situation in an attempt to get the outcome he desires. Anyone who thinks otherwise hasn't been paying attention.
-
An original plains Roughrider ... with feathers.
-
What happens when in this farcical three-way race the top two are within 126 votes of each other and none has a majority. They've dug themselves quite a hole. Top two. Vote. Done.
-
They've dug themselves quite a hole, haven't they. Imagine the top two (of three) within 126 votes ... and no majority.
-
That defines arbitrary and capricious. You don't trust organizations that behave in that manner (cough - NCAA - cough). And that is why Twamley must go back to the voting process as originally defined.
-
I'd say he's clear to do that until the next "here's your link to vote" email goes out.
-
Just over half of eligible US voters show up for a Presidential election. For state and local elections (no Presidential ballot) it drops markedly, like into the territory of this turnout.
-
And a bird in a head dress is better.
-
There was less than 30% voter turnout in round one. What'll it be by round three?
-
But according to the newly re-written rules, "most votes" of FH, RR or N ... wins. Unless someone re-re-writes the already re-written rules. It's time to step back and run under the process and rules the first vote was advertised under (top two), otherwise, I can claim a bait and switch has happened and the voters were harmed --> If you knew "top three" going in, would you have voted differently?
-
Foghorn Leghorn was a chicken. The little guy was a chicken hawk.
-
Yes, we need a majority; however, in this arbitrary (based on original stated process) three-way race, it won't happen. Worse? They've already said the most votes (majority not required) wins this round ... Unless they change the rules ... again.
-
-
Born: Union Hospital, Mayville, ND I find Nodak, when used by a non-North Dakotan toward a North Dakotan, is used as a derogatory term intended to mean "backwards" or "hick".
-
Again I say bologna. Abe Vigoda guy (siouxphan27) was staunchly "anti- Roughriders" and he's saying "top two" when we know it takes his favorite out of play. There are others. What's good for the University is to not appear to be influencing the vote by arbitrarily and capriciously changing the rules on the fly. What's good for the University is to make statements and live to them.
-
Bologna. The final process was defined and advertised. If this was only an advisory vote and the rules could be changed on the fly it should've been advertised as such. If Kelley wanted an advisory vote he should've said that. Instead, we have a blatant renege on the process that was defined and advertized by Dr. Kelley. "Renege" is a nice way of saying we've all been lied to. When will it happen again.
-
The committee recommended it, but Kelley adopted it. Kelley changing the process he advertised is not acceptable. If he wanted to retain control he should have held an advisory vote and said he'd use those results to define the next step. Instead, he defined a process and then reneged. He lied to me; he lied to all of us.
-
Exactly. Was it 100? 200? 250? Top two means top two. With five options a small gap between numbers two and three should've been easily considered and expected. The process as laid out handled it: top two. The process needs to be followed as advertised and this "Don Adam" (make this ---- up as I go) stuff has to stop.
-
Hasn't happened much lately, but here we agree. Follow the process. If it's not followed here what "Don Adam" thing will be used next.
-
We need to demand the process that was defined be followed. Tell him. robert.kelley@und.edu
-
Kelley came to his senses and followed the process (committee recommendations) before. He must follow the process, HIS process, again or he's clearly open to the criticism that he's manipulating the outcome.
-
Dr. Kelley needs to step back and follow the process he defined and just go with two. Otherwise how are we to not believe that he'll change the rules again this round? He needs to maintain the integrity of his own process.
-
My question is this: Will Kelley backtrack on putting three on the ballot or will he backtrack on not requiring a majority vote in round two? Backtracking and changing the rules midstream are the only parts of this process that have been consistent.
