StarGateWars Forums

papa~smurf wrote:
u asked. I will answer. Leave the major empire u belong to so u can not be said to be "in bed " with any one. That your real reason for running is to serve the users, and not an empire.

and this could be said to all who are running.

Sorry , but leaving any alliance wil actually not break the bonds you have with the players of that alliance , and it is the choice of the person that wil dicide if he/she wil pull for one side ore the other , i wold think any selfrespecting person that gets pushed in a direction by his alliance or friends wold see this as an insult on his neutrality and thus hopefully make the correct choice.

Legendary Apophis wrote:How about we let Jack name the successor? I'm sure he'll choose well and a not biased person.

No matter who Jack wold choose , i'm shure he wold name a worthy person but others wil shurly say its a bad choice , or be opposed to whoever is pointed out or even find that pointing someone out is not democratical.

Draleg wrote:

papa~smurf wrote:
u asked. I will answer. Leave the major empire u belong to so u can not be said to be "in bed " with any one. That your real reason for running is to serve the users, and not an empire.

and this could be said to all who are running.

Sorry , but leaving any alliance wil actually not break the bonds you have with the players of that alliance , and it is the choice of the person that wil dicide if he/she wil pull for one side ore the other , i wold think any selfrespecting person that gets pushed in a direction by his alliance or friends wold see this as an insult on his neutrality and thus hopefully make the correct choice.

Legendary Apophis wrote:How about we let Jack name the successor? I'm sure he'll choose well and a not biased person.

No matter who Jack wold choose , i'm shure he wold name a worthy person but others wil shurly say its a bad choice , or be opposed to whoever is pointed out or even find that pointing someone out is not democratical.

Worth a try though, if ombudsman is "sided", it will cause more problems considering the big war and will not solve problems, jack will name a non "biased" one and not "spokeman" of a side or group, like what this role is meant to be.
Democracy here isn't a solution, for race mods it's cool, IF there wasn't the war it wouldnt be a problem, but there all are "sided" and will not solve tensions on forums, because of the war.

Legendary Apophis wrote:Worth a try though, if ombudsman is "sided", it will cause more problems considering the big war and will not solve problems, jack will name a non "biased" one and not "spokeman" of a side or group, like what this role is meant to be.
Democracy here isn't a solution, for race mods it's cool, IF there wasn't the war it wouldnt be a problem, but there all are "sided" and will not solve tensions on forums, because of the war.

Then i hope you ask the MODS to leave there alliance to , as they have bonds to there alliance , and it wold be more apropriate for Jason to point out someone , but the problem is even Jason has being accused to do more for some ppl then for others.

Maybe having more then one wold be a good comprimise.

Ombudsperson should immediately mass anyone who complains, then mass the person they complained about, thus keeping it 100% fair.

Draleg wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Worth a try though, if ombudsman is "sided", it will cause more problems considering the big war and will not solve problems, jack will name a non "biased" one and not "spokeman" of a side or group, like what this role is meant to be.
Democracy here isn't a solution, for race mods it's cool, IF there wasn't the war it wouldnt be a problem, but there all are "sided" and will not solve tensions on forums, because of the war.

Then i hope you ask the MODS to leave there alliance to , as they have bonds to there alliance , and it wold be more apropriate for Jason to point out someone , but the problem is even Jason has being accused to do more for some ppl then for others.

Maybe having more then one wold be a good comprimise.

Nah ombuds(wo)man is different than mods, modship needs many people, and some good ones belong to "sided" alliances, so biased mods is ok as long as it's not onesided bias. As mods are many, they can be neutral & be on both sides. Ombudsman (or ombudswoman) is alone, so it's one sided and would get problems. Henc need of neutral for this one and not mods .

Lol borek

Borek wrote:Ombudsperson should immediately mass anyone who complains, then mass the person they complained about, thus keeping it 100% fair.

that wold be 66% , for the full 100% the ombudsperson needs to delete after massing both.

And why , there are actually neutral Mod's , is it so hard to beleve that there is a chance that the person chosen to be OM , who ever it is , can be neutral.

I'm shure if the OM makes a mess of it he wold not be OM long.

Borek wrote:Ombudsperson should immediately mass anyone who complains, then mass the person they complained about, thus keeping it 100% fair.

Seconded.

Draleg wrote:

Borek wrote:Ombudsperson should immediately mass anyone who complains, then mass the person they complained about, thus keeping it 100% fair.

that wold be 66% , for the full 100% the ombudsperson needs to delete after massing both.

And why , there are actually neutral Mod's , is it so hard to beleve that there is a chance that the person chosen to be OM , who ever it is , can be neutral.

I'm shure if the OM makes a mess of it he wold not be OM long.

Because I have an idea of who is successor, or possibilites to be...so I know person isn't TJP nor FUALL.
It's a competent person ofc.
Being a long term using forum person and active forum member I wouldnt want a bad thing and support it to happen, isn't it?

I'm sorry , i just cant get my head around the TJP & FUALL problem , there wil always be bonds to other ppl ingame , no matter if the OM is TJP or FUALL , sorry to have to post this but a lot of ppl and alliances dont show there tru colors ingame.

I'm shure there ar ppl out there supporting TJP & FUALL that never have shown interest in public , and pls dont forget who you think is neutral can be your secret opponent.

Draleg wrote:I'm sorry , i just cant get my head around the TJP & FUALL problem , there wil always be bonds to other ppl ingame , no matter if the OM is TJP or FUALL , sorry to have to post this but a lot of ppl and alliances dont show there tru colors ingame.

I'm shure there ar ppl out there supporting TJP & FUALL that never have shown interest in public , and pls dont forget who you think is neutral can be your secret opponent.

Oh no this person isn't my secret opponent.
And anyway let's say there are scales of neutrality, noone is fully, but some are more than others.
If TJP gets the spot, FUALL will not be pleased, and vice versa
So a neutral is better so none is unpleased like it would be if it was one sided and have topics created on decisions etc..
Nothing is perfect indeed, but it would be less biased, so better to fit the role!

Legendary Apophis wrote:Oh no this person isn't my secret opponent.

If TJP gets the spot, FUALL will not be pleased, and vice versa
So a neutral is better so none is unpleased like it would be if it was one sided and have topics created on decisions etc..

the position is not about FUALL / TJP , its about forum users and forum mods.

I'm shure it wil take some time but if the OM is any good @ his job both sides wil accept him/here , all you seem to think about is there are only 2 factions ingame , and ingame is not the forum , with the TJP / FUALL vision you show here it is obvius to me that you wold not be the correct person for the job , but then again i'm shure other ppl wold actually be happy to see you nominated.

It may sound harch but nobody wold be perfect for everyone.

if the decision is based off who is the least threatening to TJP or FUALL then you might as well just close the forum and stop playing. I've never heard such rubbish in my life, base a decision for a position that will require someone to put in-game alliances to the side on the basis that they don't have a link to any warring alliances???

what happens if the person appointed joins one side or the other later on? or has more friends in 1 Empire than the other? Do you realise how pathetic that sounds? lol

Draleg wrote:

Legendary Apophis wrote:Oh no this person isn't my secret opponent.

If TJP gets the spot, FUALL will not be pleased, and vice versa
So a neutral is better so none is unpleased like it would be if it was one sided and have topics created on decisions etc..

the position is not about FUALL / TJP , its about forum users and forum mods.

I'm shure it wil take some time but if the OM is any good @ his job both sides wil accept him/here , all you seem to think about is there are only 2 factions ingame , and ingame is not the forum , with the TJP / FUALL vision you show here it is obvius to me that you wold not be the correct person for the job , but then again i'm shure other ppl wold actually be happy to see you nominated.

It may sound harch but nobody wold be perfect for everyone.

No it's not me the selected one (don't think I would like it anywayz ), if I say this it's because I seen much "I got warned because the mod is on other side so doesnt like me etc". Anyway the former ombudsman is one most likely to know who fits the best since he had this role for long, and knows many people in this forum.

Borek wrote:if the decision is based off who is the least threatening to TJP or FUALL then you might as well just close the forum and stop playing. I've never heard such rubbish in my life, base a decision for a position that will require someone to put in-game alliances to the side on the basis that they don't have a link to any warring alliances???

what happens if the person appointed joins one side or the other later on? or has more friends in 1 Empire than the other? Do you realise how pathetic that sounds? lol

As I said, many people call mods decision biased on warns just because the person is on other side, so it's not like if I was trying to invent some ideal world theory vs reality...And mods are from both sides, so it's balanced, ombuds(wo)man is one person, so bias calling if the person is not from any side, (if supports one in secret, it's not a problem, everyone supports one side...or both lmao) the bias wouldn't sound that obvious and it would be ok, as this role doesn't mean full neutrality and robotism heh.
Not saying no linked people, just not one with two feet in one of the sides. Everyone is linked, but not everyone is simply "in".
Yes it's politicians' politics, but heck, one has to expect this stuff from me...

Though I wonder why I still care about this ombuds(wo)man thing lol

sorry , all i see you doing is attacking the integrity of all 3 ppl nominated , do you actually have proof they are not capable of doing the job neutraly ?

If not , pls give them ( us ) a chance.

Draleg wrote:sorry , all i see you doing is attacking the integrity of all 3 ppl nominated , do you actually have proof they are not capable of doing the job neutraly ?

If not , pls give them a chance.

It's just what people will say that would be a problem...and the snow balls start quickly as we seen. People interpret decisions sometimes wrongly.

But I think I'm done with it. Not that this position matters much afterall