[Bob Kuczewski]

Jack Axaopoulos (who goes by the alias "SG") has been running around the internet posting that I was "caught" committing voter fraud in the HGAA elections. Here's an example from the front page of the TorreyHawksForum.org (which Jack has hijacked from our club):

Bob Kuczewski caught committing voter fraud in the Hang Gliding Association of America elections. Bob Kuczewski was voted out of the HGAA for his immoral vote rigging actions along with Scott C. Wise, for his abuses of power and disregard of the memberships wishes.

That's how Jack describes things ... but let's see what really happened on July 28th, 2010 ...

Here's the overview:

1. Jack Axaopoulos locked down the HGAA forum and restricted the posts of all members (except himself). This was done without any authorization from the Transition Team. Jack abused his administrative access to the forum and literally hijacked it from the HGAA and proceeded to conduct a fraudulent election against Scott.
2. Jack Axaopoulos rigged his election against Scott Wise (consensus chairman) by including me (Bob) as a candidate when I had asked to be removed as a nominee within the specified time frame. Jack included me on the ballot (despite my written request to be removed) as an attempt to split the vote between Scott and myself.
3. Jack Axaopoulos removed my post where I stated to the Team that I would withdraw if Scott accepted his nomination.
4. Jack Axaopoulos removed my post where I stated to the Team that I endorsed Scott if Scott accepted his nomination.
5. Upon discovering this rigged election I openly asked Jack and the Transition Team to correct Jack's rigging by counting any votes cast for myself (since I was NOT a candidate) toward Scott who I had endorsed (even though Jack had removed my endorsement so the voters would not see it). I emphasize that this was an open request to the entire Team, and I was not "caught" doing anything (as Jack's post suggests).
6. Jack Axaopoulos immediately accused me of trying to commit voter fraud.
7. I replied that Jack had created the problem by rigging the election and that he should simply restart the election with the proper candidates. The election had only been under way for a few hours (less than a day) and this was the best solution.
8. Jack Axaopoulos refused to restart the election with the proper candidates. He forced me to be on the ballot even though I had clearly withdrawn. He refused to re-post my withdrawal (which he had removed), and he refused to re-post my endorsement of Scott (which he had also removed).
9. I repeated my request to just restart the election with the proper ballots (all in the same day), and Jack Axaopoulos refused.
10. Jack Axaopoulos continued accusing me of "voter fraud" when he had rigged the election from the beginning. I had simply asked to have Jack's rigged election corrected by either reallocating the misdirected points or by restarting the election. Jack refused both requests.

As a result of Jack's actions, his puppet (John Wright) was elected as Chairman of the HGAA. John Wright proceeded to carry out Jack's wishes, including banning both Scott and myself from the Transition Team and the HGAA forum (again with rigged choices and by removing the legitimate votes of legitimate members).

Here's the full story with full documentation ...

I supported Scott Wise in the HGAA Chairman election, but Scott wasn't sure that he wanted to run. Since I had been nominated (along with others), I posted an acceptance of my nomination but stated that I would withdraw my own candidacy and give my support to Scott if Scott accepted. Scott subsequently accepted his nomination in the last few minutes of the allotted time period and the nomination topic was locked shortly afterward.

The next morning, I woke to find that Jack Axaopoulos had ignored my request, and had removed my post from the topic. He had also opened a voting topic listing 4 candidates: John Borton, Bob Kuczewski, Scott C Wise, John Wright as candidates. No other topics were open in the HGAA forum and voters were instructed that comments were forbidden and would (at Jack's discretion?) cause their vote to be "PERMANENTLY REJECTED".

Under those conditions - with the forum totally locked down except for the voting topic itself - I had no mechanism to voice my objection other than by sending personal messages to Jack and the Transition Team. I would have preferred to openly post my objections, but that was prohibited and might even invalidate my own vote.

So I constructed a Personal Message (PM) which I addressed to ALL members of the Transition Team. Unfortunately, when I tried to send it, the restrictions imposed by Jack's forum refused to send it and instead his forum replied with this message:

"You tried to send a private message to too many recipients."

So I began to eliminate each recipient - one by one - until I had gotten it down to a number that it would accept. Here's that message:

Please Redistribute Votes
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:33 am
From: bobk
To: sg bobk SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns

Jack (cc Transition Team Members - Note that PM would not send to all!!),

I just noticed that you've included me in the list of candidates. Yet my own candidate post (which you removed from the forum) stated:

"Finally, I'd like to comment that I fully endorse Scott Wise as Transition Team Chairman in addition to myself. In fact, if Scott does accept his nomination, then I will withdraw my own candidacy in support of Scott."

Scott did accept his nomination shortly after my post, and I am therefore not a candidate.

So I ask that all of the votes for me be redistributed to Scott since that was my posted recommendation prior to the start of voting.

Thanks.
Bob Kuczewski

Here's the full quote of my original posting:

Members of the Transition Team and Members of the HGAA,

I'd like to start by thanking Hgaaflyer for his nomination of myself and all other members of the Transition Team. I hope we will end up being deserving of your endorsement.

On June 04, 2010 I posted a "Call for Leaders and Founders" on hanggliding.org, and that started the ball rolling toward the HGAA. It's been an interesting 54 days. Those 54 days have been full of great excitement and some terrible disappointments. Yet here we are, undaunted, and still trying to go forward. I thank everyone who's come this far, and I hope we can all keep going together.

Having said that, I feel that the HGAA is at a crossroads. We are no longer just one man's dream. We're now the melded dreams of many men and women who want to see a better organization to support our love of flight. I hope we will do just that. But we have some fundamental decisions to make, and I think these decisions will determine what kind of an organization we'll grow up to be.

As you may know, I was on USHPA's Board of Directors, and I attended 5 of the 6 USHPA Board meetings over the last 3 years. I've seen how their board operates, and I've seen what works and what doesn't work. From that perspective, I've come to believe that the greatest problem with USHPA has been a lack of insight by the general membership into what the Board does and how it does it. All of their other problems flow from that one single failing. So when I began contemplating a new national organization, I immediately thought about what we could do better. The list (as you might imagine) was pretty long, but at the top of it was accountability to our members. That means that the members should always know how we vote and how we conduct ourselves as representatives of the HGAA and particularly in all HGAA meetings and discussions. I think that is probably my primary goal for the new organization - transparency.

Well, for an organization with no money, that turned out to be easier than I might have expected. We live in the information age, and we've got forums and other on-line tools that allow us to hold "virtual board meetings" that are 100% visible to every member of the HGAA. What could be better? There's only one small hitch. The people who run the HGAA have to agree that what we say in these "virtual board meetings" will not (as in "NEVER EVER") be touched or modified in any way. That's a commitment that I am willing to make. In fact, it's so important to me that I'm willing to make it a term of my continuation on the HGAA Transition Team, and a fundamental plank of my platform as Transition Team Chairman.

Finally, I'd like to comment that I fully endorse Scott Wise as Transition Team Chairman in addition to myself. In fact, if Scott does accept his nomination, then I will withdraw my own candidacy in support of Scott. I do this because I think that Scott has demonstrated the proper mix of authority and tolerance. This is a hang gliding association and it's made up of people who have a great deal of independence and self confidence. I believe our members would prefer a leader who respects that independence, and treats us with the respect that Scott has shown during his tenure as Transition Team Chair. Let's get back to where we were when we started and get behind Scott again to lead us forward.

Thanks,
Bob Kuczewski

Now even if I had offered no additional clarification, that message addressed to the entire Transition Team cannot be construed (by any rational person) as an attempt to commit "voter fraud". Instead, it was an open and public request to correct Jack's own mishandling of the ballot choices. In fact, if there was any "voter fraud" it was being done by Jack Axaopoulos.

- Jack had removed my valid candidate posting which endorsed Scott if he would run.
- Jack had ignored my request to withdraw my candidacy when Scott accepted his own nomination.
- Jack locked the forum to eliminate any public protests over his actions (forcing us to use private messages)
- Jack had posted a ballot with an incorrect set of choices.

All of these actions had the effect of reducing the votes for Scott.

But Jack was quick to turn the tables, and he quickly replied with this PM:

Re: Please Redistribute Votes
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 7:59 am

Are you really asking me to CHANGE EVERYONES VOTE **for them**, by taking the points they gave you and assigning them to a completely different candidate???

That is straight up ELECTION FRAUD, extremely immoral, unethical, and I cant imagine anyone asking me to blatantly RIG THE ENTIRE VOTE like this.

At that point, I could see that Jack was not interested in correcting his mistake and that he was instead attempting to blame me for his mistake (as he has continued to do). So I replied almost immediately to everyone on the list:

Re: Please Redistribute Votes
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 10:40 am

Jack (cc others), you made the mistake by not honoring my candidate post where I clearly stated:

"In fact, if Scott does accept his nomination, then I will withdraw my own candidacy in support of Scott."

I think it's reasonable (given my endorsement of Scott) that people who supported me would want to support Scott. But if you want to throw around terms like "ELECTION FRAUD" and "RIG THE ENTIRE VOTE", then you should just recognize that you made a mistake and restart the voting without me as a choice. If I were recommending a course for the HGAA, that's the most defensible position that we could take.

Bob Kuczewski

But that wasn't the response - or the solution - that Jack wanted. He wanted to keep me as a candidate in his "rigged" election to reduce Scott's chances of winning. He also wanted an excuse to accuse me of misdeeds. So Jack replied by restating his accusations:

The record is clear. You asked me to commit voter fraud.
The ballot is not relevant to this issue.

END OF DISCUSSION - the record stands. You requested me to take voters points given to you, to be given to Scott. Thats as clear a request for voter fraud as you can get.

No more responses will be given - save your complaints for the new chair.
I will tell him of your actions. The new chair and TT members can decide.

At that point (with Jack's "END OF DISCUSSION" and "No more responses will be given"), I was finally convinced that Jack wasn't interested in fixing the problem to hold a legitimate election. Instead he wanted to stack the deck and be able to blame me on top of it. So I replied again to everyone on the list:

Re: Please Redistribute Votes
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:34 am
From: bobk
To: sg SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

No response is needed Jack. I hope everyone can see what has happened.

Jack made a mistake with the ballots which is biased against Scott. I openly requested that Jack correct his mistake, and I openly copied my request to as many TT members as the HGAA web site allowed. Jack refused to correct the mistake and instead, he accused me of voter fraud.

At that point JB had joined the fray:

Re: Message from JB
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:30 am
From: sg
To: bobk SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

Asking a moderator to CHANGE peoples votes and give points to someone they DID NOT give points too is CLEAR VOTER FRAUD.

Dont know how much simpler we can make it for you Bob.

====== END OF DISCUSSION ======

I replied almost immediately to JB and all the others on the list:

Re: Message from JB
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:45 am
From: bobk
To: sg SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

JB,

Your claim might have some merit if I hadn't made a public request which I copied to yourself, SG, HGXC, Scott, and SkyPilot. In fact, I tried to copy it to the entire Transition Team, but SG's software would not allow it, and instead it chose to limit my post to just those who are getting this message. I would have also posted it to the Forum, but that has been forbidden as well. So your claims of "voter fraud" are not only silly, but reveal to everyone your willingness to twist and distort the truth.

Shame on you JB.

Jack replied almost immediately as well:

Re: Message from JB
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:48 am
From: sg
To: bobk SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

You explicitly asked me to change peoples votes, and then proclaim Shame on JB???
Are you even being serious at this point???

I quickly replied:

Date: 07/28/2010 11:50:31 AM

Jack,

You made the mistake, so you fix it.

But don't accuse me of "voter fraud" or "cheating" when you're the one publishing incorrect ballots.

Bob Kuczewski

Shortly afterward, I followed up with a longer reply:

Date: 07/28/2010 12:08:55 PM

Jack,

I did NOT ask you to commit voter fraud, so DO NOT say that I did.

You made a mistake ... YOUR mistake. It could be argued that YOU have already "rigged" the election (using your terms) because YOU did not honor a legitimate request. You did not retain my post on the forum as I requested, and you did not withdraw my name as I requested. Your tactic of accusing me of what you have already done is not helping your credibility.

Now you can fix it any way you like, but I would suggest that the best approach - to minimize any controversy - is to admit your mistake and restart the voting with the correct ballots. That's my recommendation.

Bob Kuczewski

John Borton replied:

Bob - you're showing how little you've been paying attention to the Range system that's in use.

A: You being on the ballot has no effect on Scott's scores.

B: Unless you win the election and Scott comes in second (doubtful at this point) you being on the ballot can't effect Scott's ability to be elected Chair.

C: There are no "votes" to redistrubute -- everyone was given a rating. Let's take Joes' ballot:

John Borton - Score:[0-100] = 60
Bob Kuczewski - Score:[0-100] = 90
Scott C Wise - Score:[0-100] = 30
John Wright - Score:[0-100] = 70

Joe gave you a rating of 90 and Scott a rating of 30. You are asking SG to add your rating to Scott's rating and claim that Joe rated Scott a 120. We''ll, Joe doesn't believe that Scott is a 120 -- he believes he's a 30. Joe can't rate ANYONE a 120 as the upper limit is 100. SG honoring your request clearly would represent fraud.

Unlike some other systems, in Range there is no 'split the vote' consequences when additional choices are added -- putting Charles Manson or Mother Teressa on the ballot doesn't change that Joe believes Scott deserves a 30 on a scale of 0-100. Joe might give Charles a 0 and Mother Teressa a 100 -- but he would still give Scott 30.

JB

I appreciated JB's attempt at logic, but he was wrong. People who vote with the Range system (as shown in the HGAA's own elections) will tend to distribute their choices along the entire range (from 0 to 100). So they would normally give their most favored choice a score near 100. If that choice were not available, then their "second favorite" choice would become their most favored choice and still be ranked with a high score near 100. That's the problem with Range voting - the scales are not absolute between voters and they're not even absolute with regard to a single voter.

So I responded to JB and copied all others in the discussion:

Re: Message from JB
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 11:21 am
From: bobk
To: sg SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

Actually JB,

Your example would help strengthen a case against SG for voter fraud. It's well known that people who support a candidate (like myself) would also tend to give weight to my suggestion for an alternate candidate if I am not able to run. So Joe's rating of 90 for me and 30 for Scott might be easily changed if Joe knew that I was not running and if Joe knew that I had endorsed Scott. That was the obvious and legitimate intent of my post where I dropped out and gave my endorsement to Scott. SG's removal of that post combined with his simultaneous refusal to remove me from the list of candidates could easily be construed as "rigging the election", and I therefore request that SG admit that he made a mistake and that he restart the election with the proper list of candidates. There are alternate solutions which might approximate this result, but the best solution is to simply restart it and do it correctly this time.

Thanks for your time in replying.
Bob Kuczewski

Note that my repeated request to simply restart the election with the proper list of candidates was the best and most obvious solution. The voting had only been underway for a few hours (much less than one day), and simply restarting it would have resolved all of these objections. But Jack Axaopoulos clearly had no intentions of doing that. I was also concerned about this PM discussion taking place without it being posted to the entire membership (since Jack had locked the forum). As a result, I sent one more PM to the group:

Re: Message from JB
Sent: Wed Jul 28, 2010 12:14 pm
From: bobk
To: sg SkyPilot S C Wise ThinAirDesigns hgxc

Jack,

You made two mistakes which coincidentally both hurt Scott's chances of being elected:

1. You removed my posted Candidate Statement where I endorsed Scott.
2. You refused to remove my name from the ballot after I had withdrawn.

Those could be considered innocent mistakes, but that determination will be based largely on your response to having these mistakes brought forward. I have suggested two solutions, and I have given you the choice to do whatever you want. Your continued (and obviously false) claim of "voter fraud" demonstrates that you have no intention of fixing your mistakes and that you instead wish to divert attention from your mistakes by making baseless claims directed at me.

The record is clear, and you are only making it worse by your refusal to correct this "mistake" and by your continued attempt to divert the blame toward me.

I will not respond any further via private messages, and I request that you open a public topic where this can be discussed openly in front of the entire team.

Jack never started a new topic where this could have been discussed by all members. Jack never corrected the faulty ballots. Jack never restarted the election. Instead, he now goes around claiming (in big red letters) that I tried to commit voter fraud.

You can be the judge of who was trying to conduct an honest election and who wasn't. As I mentioned to Jack on several occasions, his own actions are only damaging his own credibility among those who are willing to dig into the facts.

[Free]

Jack Axaopoulos spins lies and disinformation in the following paragraph written in order to help cover the tracks of the coup detat that was recently pulled by himself, and a small "Band of Brothers", against Bob and Scott.
It's a poorly written piece that exposes how childish Jack really is to believe that people will buy cheap propaganda like this.

Bob and Scott banned
When Bob Kuczewski and Scott C. Wise were banned from the largest hang gliding community on the internet, the response from the community was 100% positive. Here is a snapshot of the messages sent to the admin. Not a single negative message. Everyone was happy and relieved.

What a crock! Jack claims support of 100% of the hang gliding community. "Everyone was happy and relieved"
Oh boy!
Jack Axaopoulos doesn't allow any dissent to his bully tactics, showing that he is also the coward.
Censorship really is a tool of cowards and bullies and bullies are always cowards.
Jack takes it as personal endorsement when sycophants suck up to stay on the tyrants good side.

Jack Axaopoulos either doesn't have a very high opinion of readers' intelligence or he doesn't have a grasp on reality himself. Maybe both.

Keep up the 'good' work, Jack.
Everybody is "100% " behind your actions.
Especially the corporate borg..

[Bob Kuczewski]

Bob and Scott banned
When Bob Kuczewski and Scott C. Wise were banned from the largest hang gliding community on the internet, the response from the community was 100% positive. Here is a snapshot of the messages sent to the admin. Not a single negative message. Everyone was happy and relieved.

What a crock! Jack claims support of 100% of the hang gliding community. "Everyone was happy and relieved"
Oh boy!
Jack Axaopoulos doesn't allow any dissent to his bully tactics, showing that he is also the coward.
Censorship really is a tool of cowards and bullies and bullies are always cowards.
Jack takes it as personal endorsement when sycophants suck up to stay on the tyrants good side.

Jack Axaopoulos either doesn't have a very high opinion of readers' intelligence or he doesn't have a grasp on reality himself. Maybe both.

Keep up the 'good' work, Jack.
Everybody is "100% " behind your actions.
Especially the corporate borg..

Great points. Jack seems to suffer from the same problem as David Jebb. Jebb bullied anyone who disagreed with him and surrounded himself with "yes men". Those who disagreed were either banned or intimidated into silence. So whenever David Jebb asked "Who's the greatest?" the only voices willing to respond proclaimed that he was. That's why he couldn't imagine that he'd lose a Regional Director election to Bob Kuczewski. He thought everyone loved him. That's what Jack seems to want to believe as well.

That's also why Jack won't come here to address his actions in the HGAA. This is a place where he can't control what people say. He can't bury topics here. He can't ban people here. He can't change what they've said here. This is a site where he doesn't have an unfair advantage over everyone else. Hence, this is a site where he's afraid to post.

[Bob Kuczewski]

I also wanted to add another comment about John Borton's post (since I couldn't comment on the HGAA forum at that time):

Bob - you're showing how little you've been paying attention to the Range system that's in use.

A: You being on the ballot has no effect on Scott's scores.

B: Unless you win the election and Scott comes in second (doubtful at this point) you being on the ballot can't effect Scott's ability to be elected Chair.

C: There are no "votes" to redistrubute -- everyone was given a rating. Let's take Joes' ballot:

John Borton - Score:[0-100] = 60
Bob Kuczewski - Score:[0-100] = 90
Scott C Wise - Score:[0-100] = 30
John Wright - Score:[0-100] = 70

Joe gave you a rating of 90 and Scott a rating of 30. You are asking SG to add your rating to Scott's rating and claim that Joe rated Scott a 120. We''ll, Joe doesn't believe that Scott is a 120 -- he believes he's a 30. Joe can't rate ANYONE a 120 as the upper limit is 100. SG honoring your request clearly would represent fraud.

Unlike some other systems, in Range there is no 'split the vote' consequences when additional choices are added -- putting Charles Manson or Mother Teressa on the ballot doesn't change that Joe believes Scott deserves a 30 on a scale of 0-100. Joe might give Charles a 0 and Mother Teressa a 100 -- but he would still give Scott 30.

JB

First of all, I didn't ask my votes to simply be added to Scott's total. Instead, I asked that they be redistributed to account for the fact that Jack had posted an invalid list of choices which was biased against Scott. Redistribution could be done in any number of ways ... including simply restarting the election so that the voters themselves could redistribute them. This was the approach that I requested repeatedly and it was ignored.

Beyond that, JB is asserting here that Range votes are somehow absolute (JB wrote: "in Range there is no 'split the vote' consequences when additional choices are added"). Let's take a look at what that means in a real world example ....

Here's John Borton's own vote for Chairman:

John Borton = 100
Bob Kuczewski = 10
Scott C Wise = 0
John Wright = 100

Using JB's notion of absolute rating, that means that he thinks that there is no one on the planet who would be a better Chairman than he would. Mother Therese wouldn't be better. Rob McKenzie wouldn't be better. Joe Faust wouldn't be better. Is that really possible? How did we get so lucky that out of all the people in the world we got JB on the ballot ... and no one could be better!?!

The same problem exists on the low side as well. Is John Borton really saying that Scott Wise is just as bad as Charles Manson (John Borton's own example)? Is Scott just as bad as David Jebb? No. Of course not.

So while Range supporters will claim that Range voting isn't influenced by the choices on the ballot, we know in practice that it is. Jack knows that it is. That's why Jack ignored my request to be removed from the ballot because that would have increased Scott's chances of winning. So while Jack accuses me of trying to rig the election, that's exactly what he actually did!!

Now JB does make a good point that you can't simply add scores when trying to fix Jack's mistake. That's why I replied that the best solution was to restart the election. I did comment that there were ways to approximate the solution (you could, for example, assign Scott the maximum score between the two candidates), but the best solution was to just start it over. If Jack really wanted a fair election, then that's what he should have done, and JB should have supported that option. But Jack did not restart it, and JB did not request it of the team. Why not Jack? Why not JB?

Oh that's right ... neither of them will answer those questions and anyone asking them on hanggliding.org or the HGAA will soon be banned.

[wingspan33]

I'd like to add another perspective to Jack Axaopoulos' claims. Below you will find a screen capture of Jack's own self created rules for voting for a New Chairman after his take over of the HGAA web site.

Please note that his rules (#s 1 and 2) indicate that a person can post once as a voter AND once as a candidate. Therefore Jack's own rules explicitly allow someone two posts - once in each capacity. This is even explained in Rule #3.

Bob posted once, and had not yet been nominated, so that seems to have been counted as his Voter Comment/Support Post. That used up one of Bob's posts. But if you look here - [ http://www.hangglidingassociationofamer ... 7&start=10 ], five posts down, you will see that Hgaaflyer nominates all Transition Team members. That includes Bob. So Bob is then nominated and can post a second time.

However, Jack Axaopoulos removes Bob's second post as a rule breaking post. But how is it a rule breaking post? Bob is accepting his nomination. That's not a rule violation?

However, Bob's post includes a qualification. That being, he will decline his nomination if I accept my nomination. Therefore, at the moment at which I accept my nomination, Bob's post becomes a violation of the rules because Bob can't have two posts - if one is not an acceptance post - which his second post fails to be, once I accept my nomination as Chairman.

As a result, and very logically(?), Jack Axaopoulos removes Bob's second post since Bob has violated Jack's Voting Rules by effectively posting a second post that is not a nomination acceptance.

But wait, Bob's first post (the seventh post on this page [ http://www.hangglidingassociationofamer ... f=13&t=117 ] can't be called a Voter's Support Post because he does not, in any way "support" any candidate within that post. Neither does he accept a nomination since he's not effectively nominated (by Hgaaflyer) until the next day.

Giving a bit more thought to Bob's second post, while effectively declining nomination, he IS supporting me as Chairman. That makes it a post that SUPPORTS a candidate! So, while Bob's first post is actually in violation of the rules (it neither supports a candidate nor involves an acceptance for nomination), Jack Axaopoulos allowed it to stand. And again, once I accepted my nomination, Bob's second post becomes merely a "Voter Support" post which is allowed under the rules.

So, why did Jack Axaopoulos leave Bob's first rule breaking post alone yet remove his second post that supported a candidate (i.e., me)?

The only way to look at this is that it was Jack Axaopoulos' intent to obscure two things from public view. #1) Bob's withdrawal from the HGAA's Chairman Election, and #2) Bob's request that anyone supporting him not vote for him but instead give their vote to me.

There is a third possibility. That is that Jack saw Bob's second post as a rule violation since (once I accepted my nomination) it could no longer be considered a nominee acceptance post. Therefore, Bob was no longer a candidate and could not be allowed two posts. But, if that was the case, the only logical or rational thing to do would have been to remove Bob's name from the ballot - which he did not do.

Also, it would have followed Jack's own rules much better if he had removed Bob's first post, and left Bob's second post as Bob's "support" post for me as a candidate. But Jack Axaopoulos did not do that either! Instead, Jack Axaopoulos left a rule violating post alone and removed Bob's post that (once I accepted my nomination) supported me as a candidate.

This is what NO ONE with a working mind can deny -

Jack Axaopoulos read BobK's second post. He knew that if I accepted my nomination (as made by Hgaaflyer), then Bob was encouraging people to vote for me - AND to give me the votes that they may have otherwise given Bob.

Jack Axaopoulos had multiple HOURS to remove BobK from the list of nominees (or just not include him!). He utterly failed to do so. He even acknowledged that Bob had not accepted his nomination [see the second post in the vote thread - http://www.hangglidingassociationofamer ... f=13&t=118 ] -

Technically, [Bob] did not accept his nomination as governed by the rules, or try again and accept it in time. I PM'd him to edit his candidate post to be in compliance like everyone else's, but he failed to do so.

[oddly, Hgaaflyer's post nominated every Transition Team member. So, I wonder, did Jack Axaopoulos PM everyone on the Transition Team to urge them to accept their nominations? Why did he only contact Bob? Couldn't he read or comprehend that Bob was not accepting his nomination?]

Following this very clear statement that Bob has not accepted his nomination, Jack Axaopoulos makes a "judgement call" and adds Bob's name to the ballot. Here are his exact words -

However, I am making a judgement call and have added him to the candidates list. If anyone has an objection to this, please PM me.

So, apparently Jack Axaopoulos' "judgment" somehow justifies him violating his own (technical?) rules. Let's not forget, also, that Bob did indeed send Jack more than one PM objecting to Jack's "judgement call".

It should also not be overlooked that Jack Axaopoulos never attempted to explain or justify this judgment call - at the time of making it. In so doing, he places his judgment above question by anyone and creates no record for the basis of that "judgment call". Undeniably, Jack Axaopoulos really and truly concealed the basis for his judgment call. It can not be called a judgment call if the reasoning behind it is withheld. What it was, in truth, was a private decision based on private motives.

So, let's see, . . .

Bob didn't want to be a candidate as easily understood by his second post's wording (that should I accept candidacy for the chairman's position he would give up his candidacy - and ask those who would vote for him to instead vote for me).

Jack Axaopoulos himself recognizes and states that Bob "did not accept his nomination".

What reason or rational - besides Blatant Election Manipulation can Jack Axaopoulos give for adding BobK to the election ballot?

Well, Jack Axaopoulos has not, can not, and never will be able to give any GOOD reason for his actions. Instead, he attacks Bob and I to divert attention from the facts involved in what he did. Those facts make sense only if someone had one specific intent. And I feel very sorry for anyone incapable of realizing what that intent was.

Unfortunately, as long as there are sheeple there will also be those who are ready, willing and able to exploit them.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Excellent and thoughtful analysis Scott!! That's the kind of clear and careful thinking that made you my choice for Chair of the HGAA (before it became the SGAA).

I think your key point is that Jack had two legitimate choices:

1. Consider me a candidate and allow me 2 posts.
2. Consider me not a candidate and allow me 1 post.

But Jack chose the incompatible (and illegal according to his own rules) option of considering me a candidate and yet only allowing me 1 post.

His actions betray his motive ... which was to keep you from being elected.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Summary for New Visitors to this Topic

It's been over a year now since Jack Axaopoulos conducted that crooked election, and there are now people interested in this topic who were not the original witnesses to the fraudulent HGAA election. So for their benefit I'd like to offer a more complete description of what happened.

I had founded the HGAA around June of 2010, but I had allowed Jack Axaopoulos to create a forum where we would conduct our business discussions on line. Those discussions ended up leading to an election for a new Chairman after our original consensus Chairman (Scott Wise) was challenged by Jack Axaopoulos. All of the HGAA discussions and voting in that election were done on the web forum which was completely controlled by Jack Axaopoulos. There were 2 factions in that election:

    The first faction was generally led by John Wright and John Borton.
    The second faction was generally led by Scott Wise and Bob Kuczewski.

Jack Axaopoulos (who controlled the forum) clearly supported the first faction.

When the candidates were being nominated, we had a deadline of midnight to accept our nominations. I accepted my nomination, but stated very clearly in my acceptance post that I would withdraw my nomination and support Scott if he decided to run before the deadline. And just prior to midnight, Scott posted that he would accept his nomination.

The next morning, Jack Axaopoulos took 2 actions which were improper with regard to the election:

  1. He removed my post where I endorsed Scott and where I said that I would withdraw if Scott accepted.
  2. He created a ballot that included both myself and Scott along with John Wright and John Borton.

It was clear to me (and many others) that Jack did that with the explicit hope of splitting the vote for Scott and having some of those votes cast for me. Imagine, for example, that the Republican party submitted one candidate for inclusion on the ballot, but the voting "authority" ended up including a second Republican candidate. That would invalidate the election right there. That's exactly what Jack had done.

But since the voting had already begun when I discovered the error the next day, I wrote to Jack and John Borton and several others asking to have my votes transferred to Scott since I was NOT a candidate. This was reasonable because Scott and I were of the same faction ("party") and it was also reasonable because I had withdrawn from the election and asked my supporters to vote for Scott.

Now you can debate whether that's the best solution to this problem or not. But since I made a public request for that action and I included the opponent candidates in that request, there is no way that it can be considered fraud. It was much more similar to asking for any ballots with "hanging chads" to be counted for that candidate. The election authority could decide whether that was a reasonable request or not. But it would never be considered fraudulent to simply make that request.

But Jack didn't want to honor that request, and instead he claimed that I was committing "voter fraud". I immediately replied that if he didn't want to credit Scott with votes cast for me (when I wasn't a candidate) then he should simply restart the election. After all, the vote had only been underway for a few hours, and our total voting team was less than a few dozen people who could be easily notified.

But Jack Axaopoulos refused to do that either because he wanted to be sure that the vote remained split. So he not only continued to claim voter fraud, but he also continued to conduct an election with me on the ballot to draw votes from Scott. In the end, John Wright won the election, but his leadership was not widely respected and the HGAA ended up dying soon after that fiasco.

The most important point here is that there was NEVER any attempt to conduct "voter fraud" because my request had been circulated as widely as possible (within the locked down forum), and I had even included the opposition members and at least one of the opposition candidates in my request. Fraud requires an attempt to deceive, and that element was never present in my actions. I was making a legitimate request to correct a flawed election ballot that was created by a crooked election authority.

I would also like to note that shortly after this crooked election, Jack Axaopoulos - who had volunteered and been trusted to register and run the torreyhawksforum.org web site - locked down that site without any authority from the President (myself) or our Board of Directors. Jack not only locked down the forum (preventing any replies), but he also defaced every page with claims of misconduct (including "voter fraud") against myself and Scott Wise. Jack Axaopoulos also abused his administrator authority and actually changed other people's posts on that forum as he has done on other forums which he has moderated.

[Bob Kuczewski]

Jack Axaopoulos continues to mischaracterize what happened during the 2010 HGAA.

I've posted the record of what happened above. Since Jack Axaopoulos continues to cling to his mischaracterization, I would appreciate posts by anyone who remembers what happened.

Thanks.

[Free]

Some people used to call Jack Axopopolus,- Bunny Boy, on the old yahoo lists and maybe even before that on the Utah.edu list that ran the first
Hang gliding web list. I don't know who started it but Jack didn't like it too much so of course the nick name was used often.
Jack wanted a lot of attention and he got it. Those days were the wild west on the internet. Everything was on one scrolling page
The University that sponsored the list called it a "lab" and probably studied the interactions of crazy people in their computer psychology classes.

It became too much for them and it was shut down. Politics, gun rights and people that thought they were sky gods.
There was just too much uncontrolled discourse that the sheeple indoctrination center had to shut it down. Fingers were pointed and I
got some blame... a lot of blame for the University's consternation.

A Yahoo list was set up and it too was a simple scrolling page. Wild west again for a few years.
Went head to head with Jack Axopopolus many times peer to peer. He used to want to jump in and mix it up until he lost the
arguments so much. The censorship started and Jack and Davis took the opportunity to start their own money generating hg list.
Now they always win the arguments, as cowards. They memory hole what they don't like. Davis is more strategic,
Jack Axopopolus is more cowardly.

Jack was also kind of a child prodigy to hear him tell it. Never saw him fly and maybe he doesn't now. The .org is just his ad revenue play thing.
John Borton, mentored the child prodigy for some reason.
Jack Ax booted me once for using the term "in bed with' referring to Jack and Dennis Cavagnaro, when they were trying to gain a parasitic screening position for new interest pilot wanna-be-s. Me thinks Jack has a homo-complex. Now that I think about it JB had quite a fling with a female pilot that had more in common with a teen age boy's physique than any woman I ever met. ... maybe I've said too much..

[wingspan33]

Jack Axaopoulos continues to mischaracterize what happened during the 2010 HGAA.

I've posted the record of what happened above. Since Jack Axaopoulos continues to cling to his mischaracterization, I would appreciate posts by anyone who remembers what happened.

Thanks.

If people read this whole thread from the beginning it will be clear that the person once again screaming "voter fraud" over at SG.org is intentionally misrepresenting the facts. Bunny Boy/Jack the Ax is the one who Intentionally MANIPULATED the VOTE on that day back in July of 2010.

Having the Bully Pulpit over on the Jack Show, he can say anything he wants and so far has gotten away with it. But the very real and actual proof would prove Jack to be a liar ten times over. If I were him I wouldn't be so willing to slander people on a public web site. But he's not me. I'm actually rational and do my best to maintain a truthful and moral viewpoint.

Sadly, some people have problems with achieving certain basic standards. Yea. A good title for someone like that could be "Mr./Ms. Standards Gap".