4 ms·

Really? You're going to call out the entire rest of this thread, many posts with links to back up credible claims being made, and go with "There are a finite n

Really? You're going to call out the entire rest of this thread, many posts with links to back up credible claims being made, and go with "There are a finite number of people and companies serving in this space"? Do you honestly believe that there isn't a company that could have made the app without direct financial ties to one candidate? There are certainly a number of developers who fit that description in this very thread.

throwaway5752 7y ago
There are plenty of credible and factual claims being made here, they are just not material. Just because someone has a financial relationship doesn't mean their is malfeasance. That's why all sorts of legal documents have conflict disclosures. That's why their are legal consequences for not disclosing conflicts. A conflict is not a de facto problem, acting on that conflict is and I see no reason to believe that happened here. I don't see anyone in the Democratic party that benefits from this. There are a million companies that could have written this app. I could have written this app. The reason I didn't is that I don't target this market, don't have domain expertise in how caucuses are run [at the level of writing an app to administer one], and have no prior work to reference in the space. I have no doubt that's the reason the vendor was selected.
- sdinsn 7y ago
  > The reason I didn't is that I don't target this market, don't have domain expertise in how caucuses are run Then why are you still spreading your stupid take?
  - dang 7y ago
    Whoa. Please don't reply to a bad comment with a worse one. That helps nothing; it just makes the thread even worse. Also, personal attacks are particularly not ok and will get you banned here, so please omit those especially. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - sdinsn 7y ago
      Did you issue him a warning as well? He started this thread by calling everyone dumb, and I have an ethical obligation to respond to that in part. > That helps nothing; it just makes the thread even worse. I fundamentally disagree. I appreciate the calmness of your stance, but in reality, nothing is worse than a hostile opinion that is not actively combated.
- joejohnson 7y ago
  I think the fact that one of the people on the ballot also paid a bunch of money to the maker of the voting software is noteworthy and an obvious conflict of interest. And I think pretending that this conflict of interest is unavoidable is intellectually dishonest.
  - dariusj18 7y ago
    Potential conflict of interest. Being paid for one service and being paid for another is not a conflict of interest. It's just plain how business and politics works. The potential conflict of interest comes in if the company has any incentive to sabotage one project because they could make more money off of another. Here transparency is our resource to investigate whether these accusations are true. For instance, if there are monies not reported correctly or if there is some discrepancy between services provided and service rendered, then we would have evidence of a conflict of interest.

throwaway5752 7y ago

There are plenty of credible and factual claims being made here, they are just not material. Just because someone has a financial relationship doesn't mean their is malfeasance. That's why all sorts of legal documents have conflict disclosures. That's why their are legal consequences for not disclosing conflicts. A conflict is not a de facto problem, acting on that conflict is and I see no reason to believe that happened here. I don't see anyone in the Democratic party that benefits from this. There are a million companies that could have written this app. I could have written this app. The reason I didn't is that I don't target this market, don't have domain expertise in how caucuses are run [at the level of writing an app to administer one], and have no prior work to reference in the space. I have no doubt that's the reason the vendor was selected.

sdinsn 7y ago
> The reason I didn't is that I don't target this market, don't have domain expertise in how caucuses are run Then why are you still spreading your stupid take?
- dang 7y ago
  Whoa. Please don't reply to a bad comment with a worse one. That helps nothing; it just makes the thread even worse. Also, personal attacks are particularly not ok and will get you banned here, so please omit those especially. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
  - sdinsn 7y ago
    Did you issue him a warning as well? He started this thread by calling everyone dumb, and I have an ethical obligation to respond to that in part. > That helps nothing; it just makes the thread even worse. I fundamentally disagree. I appreciate the calmness of your stance, but in reality, nothing is worse than a hostile opinion that is not actively combated.
joejohnson 7y ago
I think the fact that one of the people on the ballot also paid a bunch of money to the maker of the voting software is noteworthy and an obvious conflict of interest. And I think pretending that this conflict of interest is unavoidable is intellectually dishonest.
- dariusj18 7y ago
  Potential conflict of interest. Being paid for one service and being paid for another is not a conflict of interest. It's just plain how business and politics works. The potential conflict of interest comes in if the company has any incentive to sabotage one project because they could make more money off of another. Here transparency is our resource to investigate whether these accusations are true. For instance, if there are monies not reported correctly or if there is some discrepancy between services provided and service rendered, then we would have evidence of a conflict of interest.