StarGateWars Forums

defining it by post quality is essentially an impossible task... For one, as some said earlier, quality is subjective. For another, it would take weeks to go through even a small part of the userbase to define "quality" had there been a single set of parameters to go by, which there isn't.
A warlike player that dislikes anything not like the traditional cartoons will often consider posts from sections like the anime corner to be entirely without quality, no matter what they contained. That does not mean it is so. Temple denizens do not consider GC posts to have any quality to speak of, yet they may have quality nonetheless...

[spoiler]

fine_dine_decca wrote:i'm not one to complain about being disenfranchised, except right here and now.

i've been on this forum for 5-6 years, and i've been playing sgw since shortly before then. yet despite this long and distinguished career, i find myself unable to vote in the current ombudsmen elections because apparently i'm not a spambot or an attention-obsessed, internet-addict who treats this forum like their own personal blog (looking at you noobert).

what i am protesting against is this ridiculous 150 post requirement; its like the jim crow laws all over again. when i'm reading something in the forum, and i'm about to post, i like to think first - will me posting really help this discussion and enlighten my fellow sgw players? or will i just be spamming or wasting people's time? this is why i only post sparingly, because when i do, its because i actually want to have something meaningful to say.

yet apparently people like noobert (congratulations on just breaking the 10,000 post barrier, buddy) who could make up an entire forum with just themselves, get to vote, while i don't.

i would like to submit that we alter this voting prerequisite; perhaps by instead using forum join dates so a bunch of random new accounts don't suddenly appear and spam the election, or even better - by judging posts not on QUANTITY but by QUALITY.

hear, hear?

[/spoiler]The fact your last post was 16 months ago and suddenly you want to vote in the elections is a good enough reason to have the current voting rules. I wonder who you were wanting to vote for. What happened to the past 2 Ombudsman elections since your last post 16 months ago? Why didn't you pipe up then and want to vote? Why all of a sudden do you want to vote now?

Lets stop picking on Noobert because that has nothing to do with this issue. One wouldn't expect an Oms candidate to single out someone like that.

As Mordack has said it is imperfect, but it's the best thing we have right now. The fact you last posted 16 months ago makes it look like someone has asked you to come here and vote. is this not the case? (don't bother answering because you wouldn't say yes if it were true).

Judge by quality? Very good idea. Double-edged sword, that.
At this point, there are three people with sufficient quality posts to vote at this point.

The rest of you, go cry in a corner or go to school, your choice, but quit your whining.

What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

There are not ways of telling if accounts are forum multies besides IP checks and that is ultra easy to avoid. Opening up voting to all no matter what their activity is like would almost definitely flood votes with multies. It would also increase people going and asking users that don't use forums anymore to just login and vote for them as a favour.

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

There are not ways of telling if accounts are forum multies besides IP checks and that is ultra easy to avoid. Opening up voting to all no matter what their activity is like would almost definitely flood votes with multies. It would also increase people going and asking users that don't use forums anymore to just login and vote for them as a favour.

so because you speculate some peoples motives as not honest you wont allow others who are to vote?
Does that mean if one mod is bias all are??

I just don't see how its right for people to be banned from voting on pure speculation and no solid evidence. Surely we can be more civilized?

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

Very simple.

When will you lot get that?

No forum in our niche has a setup like that, it is impractical and bureaucratic, and finally, there should be a limit to the ENDLESS pampering of people who want MORE MORE MORE say in things, without ANY responsibility.

Forum is privately owned, owner says "You run it", Administration IS the lord and master of this forum. It is a **Filtered** Administration, not some kid you compared marbles with.


You have the right to whine. The rest, you waived when you registered for the forum. Next time, read the agreement you enter into before **Filtered** about it.

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

There are not ways of telling if accounts are forum multies besides IP checks and that is ultra easy to avoid. Opening up voting to all no matter what their activity is like would almost definitely flood votes with multies. It would also increase people going and asking users that don't use forums anymore to just login and vote for them as a favour.

so because you speculate some peoples motives as not honest you wont allow others who are to vote?
Does that mean if one mod is bias all are??

I just don't see how its right for people to be banned from voting on pure speculation and no solid evidence. Surely we can be more civilized?

Even by your suggestion you'd be preventing people from being able to vote. Why would you prevent them to vote?

Juliette wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

Very simple.

We. Are. No. **Filtered**. Democracy.

When will you lot get that?

No forum in our niche has a setup like that, it is impractical and bureaucratic, and finally, there should be a limit to the ENDLESS pampering of people who want MORE MORE MORE say in things, without ANY responsibility.

Forum is privately owned, owner says "You run it", Administration IS the lord and master of this forum. It is a **Filtered** Administration, not some kid you compared marbles with.


You have the right to whine. The rest, you waived when you registered for the forum. Next time, read the agreement you enter into before **Filtered** about it.

Your tone and attitude is not very becoming and is bluntly rude

I am not whining, I am criticizing, there is a significant difference.

I am not surprised users are turned off from coming here cause their are people who say to bad so sad, don't like it piss off.

How do you expect the forums to continue to run, when users are attacked when they voice concerns or criticize how things are run?

But thanks for reading my post

Let's not get rude here. There's no need for swearing or cursing. In a perfect world we would allow every user to vote, but this is not and never will be a perfect world.

It's clearly too late for any changes to be implemented in to the voting system for this Ombudsman election, but maybe we should start a new thread to put forward and discuss suggestions of improvements which can be discussed and considered between now and the next elections in 6 months time?

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

There are not ways of telling if accounts are forum multies besides IP checks and that is ultra easy to avoid. Opening up voting to all no matter what their activity is like would almost definitely flood votes with multies. It would also increase people going and asking users that don't use forums anymore to just login and vote for them as a favour.

so because you speculate some peoples motives as not honest you wont allow others who are to vote?
Does that mean if one mod is bias all are??

I just don't see how its right for people to be banned from voting on pure speculation and no solid evidence. Surely we can be more civilized?

Even by your suggestion you'd be preventing people from being able to vote. Why would you prevent them to vote?

got a clarification in PM,
it was just a quick suggestion, doesnt mean I agreed with it

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

Clarkey wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:What is the point in not allowing people to vote for a representative of their own choosing?

But I am going to speculate, just as the rest are speculating another(s) motives...
Perhaps this person (FDD) or others have not come to the forums for various reasons, which are valid.

How is it fair to say they don't have the right to vote for someone they believe can represent the interests of users/mods? Regardless of how often they have or have not posted... I can see the administration (so to say) should be worried about forum multies poping up just to give an advantage in voting. Surely their are ways to tell if that is happening? other then using posts counts...

There are not ways of telling if accounts are forum multies besides IP checks and that is ultra easy to avoid. Opening up voting to all no matter what their activity is like would almost definitely flood votes with multies. It would also increase people going and asking users that don't use forums anymore to just login and vote for them as a favour.

so because you speculate some peoples motives as not honest you wont allow others who are to vote?
Does that mean if one mod is bias all are??

I just don't see how its right for people to be banned from voting on pure speculation and no solid evidence. Surely we can be more civilized?

Even by your suggestion you'd be preventing people from being able to vote. Why would you prevent them to vote?

got a clarification in PM,
it was just a quick suggestion, doesnt mean I agreed with it

Ah ok lol, sorry i didn't expect someone to suggest something that they didn't agree with.

fine_dine_decca wrote:i'm not one to complain about being disenfranchised, except right here and now.

i've been on this forum for 5-6 years, and i've been playing sgw since shortly before then. yet despite this long and distinguished career, i find myself unable to vote in the current ombudsmen elections because apparently i'm not a spambot or an attention-obsessed, internet-addict who treats this forum like their own personal blog (looking at you noobert).

what i am protesting against is this ridiculous 150 post requirement; its like the jim crow laws all over again. when i'm reading something in the forum, and i'm about to post, i like to think first - will me posting really help this discussion and enlighten my fellow sgw players? or will i just be spamming or wasting people's time? this is why i only post sparingly, because when i do, its because i actually want to have something meaningful to say.

yet apparently people like noobert (congratulations on just breaking the 10,000 post barrier, buddy) who could make up an entire forum with just themselves, get to vote, while i don't.

i would like to submit that we alter this voting prerequisite; perhaps by instead using forum join dates so a bunch of random new accounts don't suddenly appear and spam the election, or even better - by judging posts not on QUANTITY but by QUALITY.

hear, hear?

I read this, and the entire time I was laughing. I am going to say this as a player, warn me if you must, but I want this on the record.

You are the biggest fool on this forum. The entire time I spoke to you on MSN with Turkey, I was cringing at the intelligence and reasoning skills you possessed. This post you have made just makes it public knowledge now.

You state I am able to vote? Have you checked the votes? I have not voted, nor do I wish to because I do not wish to be involved in the popularity contest. The person I would vote for is Psi, but even with my vote it would not matter; Odie or Kjak would be a close second. Let me make this evidently clear for you, and your bestest friend Turkey.

And lol @ "I'm not a spambot or attention-obsessed", that is in fact EXACTLY what you are. You and Turkey both are ADD individuals. How can you think first if you don't at all to begin with? I have you both blocked on MSN for a reason, besides the fact Turkey tried to show me photos of a **Filtered**.

And Turkey, whoever leaked the information to you (I can suspect as to whom) of people putting forward my name for Global Moderation, let me tell you now. I've refused this job for three years as I do not want to paint a target on my back for **Filtered** idiots who have zero clue as to how to Moderate, let along judge a Moderator's actions. Personally though? All of you people **Filtered** about how bad of a Moderator I am (without any proof or idea), just makes me more inclined to accept it if I am offered so I can warn you for spamming like idiots, or throwing petty insults around.

Grow up. The voting is in place for a reason. It's to stop friends from joining in while they do not even participate, or speak upon the forums in the first place. You have been here for 5-6 years and yet do not have 150 posts from the occasional post? That's laughable. Average of 12 posts per year. Anyone can make more then that in the Market just by selling/trading ATs.

Oh, and I don't brown nose. I have no reason to suck up to people on an online forum. There are people I respect on the Moderator team, and I have conversations with them. Nothing more. Jack still sucks though.

Now, now no-good-Noobert-spammer no one wants to hear about your life. This forum is for stargatewars which you don't seem to understand as pointed out with your 10,000 post blog. This topic is about allowing people who have been here for 5+ years to vote. Quite frankly (Noobert's real name) if you've been here 5+ years shouldn't you have earnt the right to vote. The first people who played this game kept it alive for all these years so it's almost their RIGHT to be allowed to vote. But of course allowing people to have rights isn't right according to the mods/admins. Think of what you are doing here people and try to help out the people who have kept this game alive for the rest of you who turned up 1-2 years ago.

Ĕɱƿŷ wrote:Now, now no-good-Noobert-spammer no one wants to hear about your life. This forum is for stargatewars which you don't seem to understand as pointed out with your 10,000 post blog. This topic is about allowing people who have been here for 5+ years to vote. Quite frankly (Noobert's real name) if you've been here 5+ years shouldn't you have earnt the right to vote. The first people who played this game kept it alive for all these years so it's almost their RIGHT to be allowed to vote. But of course allowing people to have rights isn't right according to the mods/admins. Think of what you are doing here people and try to help out the people who have kept this game alive for the rest of you who turned up 1-2 years ago.

If you have been here for 5+ years, you should have more than 150 posts on this forum. Irregardless if you are the, keyword, "thinking" type or not.

This system has been in place for a few years now, and it has worked effectively to stop some of the voters who are nudged into voting by their friends. You want to be able to vote? Participate in this forum. Otherwise, kindly shut the hell up.