Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 07:58:34 08/11/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 11, 2000 at 10:20:27, Aaron Tay wrote: >I'm a little confused. The reason you didn't vote for yourself is because it's >not ethical or you don't think you are the most qualified.. > >OR It wouldn't be ethical to vote for yourself because you think you are not one >of the three most qualified.. > >Or you *DID* vote for Yourself (Mogens Larsen) in fact, but in substance when >you did so because you were voting for the 3 most qualified persons (i.e Mogens >Larsen) and not yourself.. This is a devious option, but I didn't use it. >Wow , confusing .. > >Hmm reminds me of the story i heard about the guy who voted for his opponent as >a matter of politeness and sign of respect , and turns out he lost by a vote..! LOL, I had the feeling it could be misunderstood. I removed my name from the possible nominee's for ethical reasons and then voted for the three I prefer among the remaining. That's not the same as saying that I don't consider myself to be qualified among the first three, far from it. But it means that I voted as if I were not among the nominated. I _do_ believe I'm more than capable of performing the task, but so does the other nominee's I imagine. What would be the point of running otherwise. However you choose to look at these elections, it's a question of personal preference. None of the candidates are incapable of performing the job IMHO. Best wishes... Mogens
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.