give adult, white, land-owning males the vote please.

[Zeratul]

indications are strong that decca was asked to vote for turkey by turkey. Why?

a few years ago it was suspected they were one and the same, so like were they. It was proven undeniably otherwise of course, but it does show how close they were back then...

But just so anyone wondering knows... we never care which candidate or alliance anyone requesting to vote belongs to. At the moment we do not have a single favorite candidate, nor do we believe in such unjust manipulation as denying opponents of liked candidates vote permissions. It would be plain underhanded and wrong.

However, we also only want people that actually participate on the forums to vote, hence why we supported rules for activity in the last few elections...

[Iƒrit]

Thing is, the post count is to get people part of the community to vote. If you are not part of the community, then you have no need nor should you be voting.
So if a user exist that wishes to vote for someone they believe is the best choice to represent the users, he has no right to because he doesn't post enough? certainly seems bias (perhaps prejudice is a better word)

While it is possible to be part of the forum community without doing so, I imagine most of those who do not meet the requirements to vote have been asked by someone or another to do so. I definitely do not think it is just one group, however there is a reason the rules are in place. If you are not a member of the community, then you likely do not know the different candidates nor will you be involved with anything the ombudsman does or is.
Most of that appears to me as speculation, there are users that exist that log in and read a fair amount, but do not post for the most part, the best example I can think of is Magua, perhaps he hasn't been around much but I certainly can say I have not seen him post much but know that he did read the forums a fair amount.

As people have said, there can be a reason that someone just became active again recently and has been posting more before the elections, however you would be surprised by how many have suddenly joined the voters group yet have not posted in months or even years, or who have tried spamming 100+ posts in day or two after the elections started.
and of course they have, thats is the only way they get to choose a representative.

indications are strong that decca was asked to vote for turkey by turkey. Why?

a few years ago it was suspected they were one and the same, so like were they. It was proven undeniably otherwise of course, but it does show how close they were back then...
yes this is true, I hadn't forgot but again it is possible that I asked decca myself, that can't be proven or disproved

But just so anyone wondering knows... we never care which candidate or alliance anyone requesting to vote belongs to. At the moment we do not have a single favorite candidate, nor do we believe in such unjust manipulation as denying opponents of liked candidates vote permissions. It would be plain underhanded and wrong.
Just as it would be to do that to mods, now wouldn't it?
I remember quiet a stir after all when such ideals became procedures amoungst the administration. Though it is somewhat amusing that those who strongly defended against such restrictions are here defending using them on users and making accusations and speculations against them.

However, we also only want people that actually participate on the forums to vote, hence why we supported rules for activity in the last few elections...
participation can also include logging in and reading, updating knowledge of wars, and maybe posting something when you feel compelled enough to reply?

[Zeratul]

we were not overly active forumwise when we joined, but we reached 150 posts about 17 days after joining forums. For someone to have trouble doing that in five years, they cannot have participated on forums regularly. not even just reading.

[BMMJ13]

Thing is, the post count is to get people part of the community to vote. If you are not part of the community, then you have no need nor should you be voting.
So if a user exist that wishes to vote for someone they believe is the best choice to represent the users, he has no right to because he doesn't post enough? certainly seems bias (perhaps prejudice is a better word)

While it is possible to be part of the forum community without doing so, I imagine most of those who do not meet the requirements to vote have been asked by someone or another to do so. I definitely do not think it is just one group, however there is a reason the rules are in place. If you are not a member of the community, then you likely do not know the different candidates nor will you be involved with anything the ombudsman does or is.
Most of that appears to me as speculation, there are users that exist that log in and read a fair amount, but do not post for the most part, the best example I can think of is Magua, perhaps he hasn't been around much but I certainly can say I have not seen him post much but know that he did read the forums a fair amount.

As people have said, there can be a reason that someone just became active again recently and has been posting more before the elections, however you would be surprised by how many have suddenly joined the voters group yet have not posted in months or even years, or who have tried spamming 100+ posts in day or two after the elections started.
and of course they have, thats is the only way they get to choose a representative.

It is bias in that in order to vote for a position of power in the community, you have to be a member of it to realize what that community is about and known at least something about those running. If you are not a member of the community, then you should not, and don't, have any say in the community until you become a part of it. I do not know anyone who actually goes on the forum, who would not easily have the minimum within a year, though some could just argue that is confirmation bias. Having an account does not automatically make you a member of the community, and as the Ombudsman is meant to serve the community, it makes little sense for someone to vote whom has no idea. If there were a way to figure out how many times someone has logged in and been logged in for, then yes I could see that being used for those without enough post counts, however there is not. The current rules work to make sure that is correct mainly using post counts, with your account being more than a certain age old, having been actively posting in the past 3 months and having had enough posts to vote. These three things are to ensure that those who are voting are those who actually take part in the community actively so that the person who becomes ombudsman is best representative of them.

[Ashu]

Are you black? If yes please don't use stereotypes, not everyone is from the US and understands their specific meaning. If not, please don't use stereotypes.
i think all this spamming and circling around the thread could have been avoided if you spoke with someone from the Administration.

[Noobert]

I blame Deni for all that has occurred in this topic, and on that note. I will slap Malx on MSN for all the players and the situation will be remedied.

However, with that being said, I have to agree with him 100%. Exceptions can be made, possibly, if you are willing to participate. In this case though, I wouldn't have given him an exception because of the nature of his post, the way he handled it, the follow up, and the way he acted.

This message is brought to you in part by the bias Moderators association of Canadia.

[Juliette]

Are you black? If yes please don't use stereotypes, not everyone is from the US and understands their specific meaning. If not, please don't use stereotypes.
i think all this spamming and circling around the thread could have been avoided if you spoke with someone from the Administration.

OMG Ashleigh, that was too funny.

I will slap Malx on MSN for all the players and the situation will be remedied.

You do that.

[Ashu]

Also, as a member of the community and a MOD of these forums, I strongly disagree the fact that you use Noobert as a (bad) example. Its not your place to judge him, his post count or posts. He's a valuable member of the community, forums and administration and I advise you to respect him.

[Juliette]

Also, as a member of the community and a MOD of these forums, I strongly disagree the fact that you use Noobert as a (bad) example. Its not your place to judge him, his post count or posts. He's a valuable member of the community, forums and administration and I advise you to respect him.

Slapped a little too hard, weren't you?
But good point, indeed. What makes a good post? Or a forum member? Or a moderator, for that matter, although they are just forum members with some extra responsibility..

[Empy]

What a ridiculous topic.

If in that many years you haven't made 150 posts, then you are NOT an active member of this community, nor have you ever been. If you are not an active member of the community, then you would have no idea who the best candidate to vote for is, because you would no idea what is going on, and thus should not be allowed to vote. The only, and I mean only, reason you would want to vote is that a friend is running, and you want them to win just based on your friendship.

End of.

[Iƒrit]

What a ridiculous topic.

If in that many years you haven't made 150 posts, then you are NOT an active member of this community, nor have you ever been. If you are not an active member of the community, then you would have no idea who the best candidate to vote for is, because you would no idea what is going on, and thus should not be allowed to vote. The only, and I mean only, reason you would want to vote is that a friend is running, and you want them to win just based on your friendship.

End of.

well if we can live with such speculations as the cause for such procedures, perhaps we should bring back the ideals of admin/supermods/mods only allowed at a certain percentage of a affiliation. It is after all okay to impose similar ideas based on speculation on users and not admin/supermods/mods...

[Empy]

What a ridiculous topic.

If in that many years you haven't made 150 posts, then you are NOT an active member of this community, nor have you ever been. If you are not an active member of the community, then you would have no idea who the best candidate to vote for is, because you would no idea what is going on, and thus should not be allowed to vote. The only, and I mean only, reason you would want to vote is that a friend is running, and you want them to win just based on your friendship.

End of.

well if we can live with such speculations as the cause for such procedures, perhaps we should bring back the ideals of admin/supermods/mods only allowed at a certain percentage of a affiliation. It is after all okay to impose such ideas on users and not admin/supermods/mods...

The difference being, if one thinks logically, one must come to the conclusion that many people are simply voting based on friendship. The facts that Noobert brought out certainly prove that. We cannot perform in-depth analysis and studies to find out the real facts. We must just use our best judgement and decide, and I think the best judgement here is that many people vote based on friendship, and if users with sub-150 post counts were allowed to vote, it would be wholly inactive users who are coming here solely on request of a candidate.

[Iƒrit]

What a ridiculous topic.

If in that many years you haven't made 150 posts, then you are NOT an active member of this community, nor have you ever been. If you are not an active member of the community, then you would have no idea who the best candidate to vote for is, because you would no idea what is going on, and thus should not be allowed to vote. The only, and I mean only, reason you would want to vote is that a friend is running, and you want them to win just based on your friendship.

End of.

well if we can live with such speculations as the cause for such procedures, perhaps we should bring back the ideals of admin/supermods/mods only allowed at a certain percentage of a affiliation. It is after all okay to impose such ideas on users and not admin/supermods/mods...

The difference being, if one thinks logically, one must come to the conclusion that many people are simply voting based on friendship. The facts that Noobert brought out certainly prove that. We cannot perform in-depth analysis and studies to find out the real facts. We must just use our best judgement and decide, and I think the best judgement here is that many people vote based on friendship, and if users with sub-150 post counts were allowed to vote, it would be wholly inactive users who are coming here solely on request of a candidate.

yes and I sure can speculate, just as you and others are, about the intentions of admins/supermods/mods particularly intentions of those from a larger percentage of affiliations.
You see there were people who argued that those ideals would cause people to be singled out due to unjust reasons of speculation. Which I did happen to agree with to a degree, but strangely enough those that were against those types of bias ideals, supported this one
does certainly raise a brow to say the least....

[deni]

I would compare the post count requirement to voting in real life.

If I decided to move to the US for example, I would not allowed to vote. Once I fulfil the conditions to apply for citizenship (like years spent in the country etc), then I would be allowed to vote.

The post count gives an objective criterium to be eligable as a voter. Just as the citizenship is one in RL. Get the post count required and you will be a forum "citizen" and allowed to vote.



I agree that it is no perfect system, but democracy in RL is not one either. We just do not have anything better

[Jack]

As I recall, this person had been perma'd already once.