Ombudsman voting topic is unfair. I demand a recount.

[Solus]

Well I think I have found the fine line between anonymity and being able to keep multi's from voting. Any user who who meets the requirements may place a request here to be given access to the voting forum.Please do NOT send your request via PM. After you have been granted access you will be able to select one of the polling options available. Choose carefully as you can not change your preference once it is selected. I will try and authorise accounts to vote as quickly as possible.

The two requirements are:
Forum account must be 6 months or older
Must have 150 or more posts.
smoosh

You don't inspire much confidence in your ability to be impartial by supporting requirements that can disenfranchise your opponents. Quantity does not equate to quality and unfortunately you are worried about neither. You seem to only see a potential vote against you other than the possibility of "opening up" several others who could vote for you. I challenge you to help come up with a solution and not continue to champion the problem.

So having people with "forum multis" vote multiple times for their candidate is fair? *goes back 6 months and makes 50 forum multies*

The only problem with this one is the fact you have to wait for access... which is a small problem compared to an ombudsman being chosen unfairly...

what does it matter? just go post a hundred more times in the spam temple, not that hard...

I think Spam temple posts don't contribute to your post count, could someone confirm that for me? :S

spam temple post counts are included.

and as far as the requirements are concerned, they are fair. by the same logic of ppl who think they are too much, would you like 12 year olds voting in your country? 12 year olds who dont know much of the world of politics? you havent been too active if youve only got under 150 votes. and the same goes for the 6 month barrier. it DOES NOT discriminate, it just means you havent been here long enough or often enough to make an informed decision.

[Wepwaet]

@evilevi777
If I wanted to go roll around in the garbage you call the spam temple I would, since I don't I won't.

@Haz
I'd like you to tell me where I condone multi's being let into the voting? The current requirements stop some multi's maybe most but not all... unless you'd like to argue that there are no multi's that meet these requirements... Waiting to vote is not the issue, its not having a chance to vote that is. How is having the ombudsman chosen now fair when you ignore those that should be allowed to vote...


@Soulless
The problem is not that we are trying to cut down on multi's but that in the process you are disbarring people who should be allowed to vote which IS discrimination. Your problem is that you equate post count with an understanding of whats going on as well as mental competency and maturity. I am fairly certain that my activity on this forum surpasses most peoples, including yours with regard to how often im on and reading posts; I just do not post to watch my name appear on the screen.


I am disapointed that no one has been able to go beyond the knee-jerk reactions and actually offer ways to improve the current requirements an include those being left out of the process unfairly. Remember people, a trained chimp could get the required post count on a forum account that was old enough but do you want the chimp voting?

[Evilevi777]

i find that the spam temple actually contains for the most part more interesting stuff than the rest of the forums

[pianomutt20000]

Basically what he is saying, is that you don't use the forum enough for it to affect you one way or the other...so stop whining.




Bah, i'm tired...but if you can't see the logic, not my problem.


Bill



BTW. One of my forum multies qualifies, but i'm not stupid enough to ask permission lol. First off, everyone would go pissy, rightfully so. 2nd, i'd get banned for sure...


They can check ip's you know.......now go buy some more brain cells.

[Guardianx]

You mods do know how to BS. I am active on the forums and i cant vote. So someone who has his forum account for more than 6 months and logs in once per month can vote, but i cant even if i log in a few times per day. Yeah, this is really fair

[pianomutt20000]

You mods do know how to BS. I am active on the forums and i cant vote. So someone who has his forum account for more than 6 months and logs in once per month can vote, but i cant even if i log in a few times per day. Yeah, this is really fair

Your account is brand new, you have to be around for awhile, know all the people involved before you can make an educated vote.


Also, you don't have a high enough post count.

[Juliette]

Come now.. no need to get personal..

Waepwet; you bring a valid argument.. in short you can summarise the reply as "Choosing the lesser of two evils."
But I agree that generally it is unwise to include clauses of exclusion in the post describing who will get voting rights and who does not.

As evidenced by (for example) Nobby and Judochop, who have old enough forum accounts, and who are for all intents and purposes well known and respected members of the community, but have too few posts on their accounts (32 and 107 respectively).. they have been added to the "Voters"-usergroup. Clearly this gives evidence to the theory that if you are indeed a well known and respected player who has been around for over half a year, (which in all honesty is hardly enough time to build a proper reputation and not -ultimately- be a one-day-fly) you can receive access. IF you explain your 'lack' of post count.

Besides, 150 posts is a few for an active forum account. And really.. active forum accounts ARE the only ones who should have something to say in the matter. I'm sure you see that, given the job definition of the position?

For the record:
(frame of reference; all registered accounts; non-synchronised post counts; values do not reflect actual number of posts currently on the forums; cutoff date for voting rights is Dec 11th, 2007 (6 months before vote-permission thread launch))
9660 registered forum accounts in all.
4057 registered forum accounts have 0 posts.
8397 registered forum accounts older than 6 months.
8919 registered forum accounts with less than 150 posts.
723 registered forum accounts eligible for voting permissions (i.e. meeting both 'age' and 'post count' requirements)

Just do a member search parameters: 'join date' = "before 2007-12-12" and 'total posts' = "more than 149".


I think 723 out of 9660 is a pretty good representation, given the inactivity of almost everyone else.



Like I said.. Lesser of two evils.
(Not really a matter of educatedness or knowing others.. just a chosen cutoff date with some arguments to support it.. none of which need disclosure unless smoosh says so.)

[Guardianx]

ok

Im going to spam a forum and then you will have to grant me voting rights

[Wepwaet]

I can see that I was spot on with how you think Bill, its a shame that because you don't have a counter arguement you have to resort to petty comments and insults... very inspiring for anyone who wants a position of power.

@Rev. Auriel Daniels
I applaud your acknowledgement of my point which others unfortunately feel threatened to do so. Clearly there are outliers in every data set and I and the handful of others like me are the ones in yours. Unfortunately you also seem to hint that a high post count reflects activity... just because a person does not talk to hear himself talk doesn't not mean he is less informed or is less affected by someone in this position.

You also seem to hint at a possible solution to the problem faced by those of us who have fallen through the cracks. Is there someone to talk to via pms to finish clearing this up? As for being well known and respected... I am known by those who know me and respected by those who feel I have earned that respect. If I wanted more such as the center of attention that others crave then I would talk to hear my own voice as the saying goes.

@Guardianx
Spamming topics isn't the way to solve the underlying problem, coming up with reasonable solutions and sound arguements is.

[Juliette]

ok

Im going to spam a forum and then you will have to grant me voting rights

Funny thing is even with a gazillion posts, your account is still way too young. The 'account age' requirement was put in to counter this line of thought.
Now if you had an older account somewhere, with over 150 posts, then yes, you could get your access..

@Rev. Auriel Daniels
I applaud your acknowledgement of my point which others unfortunately feel threatened to do so. Clearly there are outliers in every data set and I and the handful of others like me are the ones in yours. Unfortunately you also seem to hint that a high post count reflects activity... just because a person does not talk to hear himself talk doesn't not mean he is less informed or is less affected by someone in this position.

Thank you. No point in ignoring a good counterargument when it comes along.. I believe it strengthens the system if counterarguments can be taken into account when presented.

You did misunderstand me when you deduce I say a high post count reflects activity.. and you'll also understand that while there are outliers in this data set of mine, there would be outliers in any given dataset, except for keeping the voting completely open to everyone. That would be multi-sensitive, and given the attention some people gave to previous ombudsman elections, the risk of sabotage was deemed to great to go for full public voting.
I trust you understand that not all people with post counts above 150 (which really isn't that much.. if your account is 6 months old, that means you made about 1 post a day) are people who want to hear themselves speak, or read themselves.. There are people who actually have that much to say.. And of course, there's the spam temple adding to some people's post counts (making them insane).
I agree that post count does not accurately reflect activity, but it does give an observer (unaware of who you are) a half-decent idea of who visits the forum when and who does not.. of course some people who meet the account age requirement but have few posts have actually made such good posts in the past that they are considered active when posting in the Permissions Topic.

You also seem to hint at a possible solution to the problem faced by those of us who have fallen through the cracks. Is there someone to talk to via pms to finish clearing this up?

At this moment, I am personally unaware such a solution is existent. That is not saying there is none, just that I don't know of it.

[Guardianx]

Funny thing is even with a gazillion posts, your account is still way too young. The 'account age' requirement was put in to counter this line of thought.
Now if you had an older account somewhere, with over 150 posts, then yes, you could get your access..

What about players with less than 150 posts and more than 6 months aold account. That is an "active" account.

[Juliette]

Funny thing is even with a gazillion posts, your account is still way too young. The 'account age' requirement was put in to counter this line of thought.
Now if you had an older account somewhere, with over 150 posts, then yes, you could get your access..

What about players with less than 150 posts and more than 6 months aold account. That is an "active" account.

As you can see in the usergroup "Voters", there are a few who did indeed not meet the post count requirements, but who have been granted access nonetheless. These are users who post in areas where their posts are frequently deleted (such as the Market), which would excuse them from the post count requirement. There is some more consideration going on before rejecting someone's application for access. It's simple though, the account age requirement beats the post count requirement in importance. In general: Older is better.

So, what's your next move in your attempt to poke holes in the system? I really enjoy these 'arguments' (albeit sometimes a tad empty) that you present, or questions you ask.

[ogre9805]

hmmm so i requested access on page 3 of that thread about a week or so ago , didnt get access so pm`d smoosh and yet still no access WHATS a goin on with that then , ?

[smooshable]

hmmm so i requested access on page 3 of that thread about a week or so ago , didnt get access so pm`d smoosh and yet still no access WHATS a goin on with that then , ?

Two points:

1: The thread has only been up for 5ish days.
2: You have access and have had for quite some time.

smoosh

[ogre9805]

hmmm so i requested access on page 3 of that thread about a week or so ago , didnt get access so pm`d smoosh and yet still no access WHATS a goin on with that then , ?

Two points:

1: The thread has only been up for 5ish days.
2: You have access and have had for quite some time.

smoosh

then why cant i post my vote ?