StarGateWars Forums

Iƒrit wrote:

E.M.P. wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

E.M.P. wrote: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....

You don't really have any evidence that Admins/Supermods/Mods are biased because of their alliance though. I was saying what I was saying because of the numbers. With very few exceptions, people are voting for the person in their alliance that is running.

E.M.P. wrote:You don't really have any evidence that Admins/Supermods/Mods are biased because of their alliance though. I was saying what I was saying because of the numbers. With very few exceptions, people are voting for the person in their alliance that is running.

And you don't have evidence of bias votes, I and others including yourself can speculate that they are only voting based on affiliation, sure I don't disagree with you. That is kind of how speculation works, its an accusation with out any evidence, just prejudice, which isn't enough to judge someone in a fair manner, especially if you disagree with such ideals being used in one instance and not in another.

So what is your suggestion in particular, Ifrit?

I am getting lost in all the arguments about biased mods.

deni wrote:So what is your suggestion in particular, Ifrit?

I am getting lost in all the arguments about biased mods.

My apologies if I came across as claiming mods were bias, its not only them I suppose, sorry if it appeared that way. Its not that I disagree with the reasoning for placement of restrictions, I just see the hypocrisy of it. Seems quiet unfair, I honestly try my best not to involve myself to much at times, but I certainly can't turn a cheek when I see something that has gone to far. And I certainly could go on with some other things I have noticed that are quiet unfair, but I have not, regardless to the point.

I can't really say, I do honestly see the "justification" behind the restrictions, just as I saw them in other instances, even if I did or didn't agree with them I did try to share my perception. I can't really say I have a perfect solution or suggestion, it is much easier to see flaws and problems then it is to find solutions. But I know of users that don't have the posts counts required and do check the forums and read them, but they are not allowed to vote because of speculative restrictions place on them. So honestly I can't really provide a solution, but my suggestion would be give some info and link to people who have low post counts, but are active in some degree so they have a chance to be able to choose a representative that they feel suits the interests of users/mods.

So the suggestion is to lower the post count requirement?

deni wrote:So the suggestion is to lower the post count requirement?

ok again my apologies I was a tad vague, no not necessarily. Perhaps a page, that explain what the thread is for and instructions for what they need to do (weather it be a post a request bellow or something else) to get an exception to the restriction(s), so that they may have a chance to vote for who they feel is the best representative. Also the thread that entails election rules and/or similar ones should show this information with a link to the page as to help guide such users to where they can be heard.

I know its not perfect. But at least they have a greater chance of being able to vote. Either that or lift the restriction completely.

Iƒrit wrote:

deni wrote:So the suggestion is to lower the post count requirement?

ok again my apologies I was a tad vague, no not necessarily. Perhaps a page, that explain what the thread is for and instructions for what they need to do (weather it be a post a request bellow or something else) to get an exception to the restriction(s), so that they may have a chance to vote for who they feel is the best representative. Also the thread that entails election rules and/or similar ones should show this information with a link to the page as to help guide such users to where they can be heard.

I know its not perfect. But at least they have a greater chance of being able to vote. Either that or lift the restriction completely.

Would that not open a can of worms as it will be not objective criteria that make someone able to vote but exceptions granted by the election team?

Tetrismonkey wrote:5 pages later and I feel as though all mods a re bias and the Ombudsman Elections are rigged on the account of popularity.

I think the post count restriction should increase every year, instead of staying at a fixed number. As the community and post counts grow, as should the restriction, perhaps a bit subtle, nothing dramatic like 100 post increase every year.

Guess im on the other end of the spectrum.

That would disallow newly joined, active forum users to vote though and tip the scales to the favour of users, who have been long here and have remained active during all the years.

A rule like

"Minimum post count of x (all time) or y posts in the last year required"

with y < x is something to be considered for the next election.

I would not pinpoint it to the account age as there are users who have registered long ago but became active just recently. I know I was registered for over an year before I actively started posting.

Iƒrit wrote:But I know of users that don't have the posts counts required and do check the forums and read them, but they are not allowed to vote because of speculative restrictions place on them.

They check the forums and read them but don't post? Why would they need the Ombudsman?

For all we know you are "speculating" about the seriousness of this issue. For all I can see there has only been one person complain that they can't vote.

Iƒrit wrote:Perhaps a page, that explain what the thread is for and instructions for what they need to do (weather it be a post a request bellow or something else) to get an exception to the restriction(s), so that they may have a chance to vote for who they feel is the best representative.

So you are suggesting the people that don't quite meet the requirements to vote can request an exception to vote. And then if that request gets denied people scream bias. Round and round we go....

deni wrote:A rule like

"Minimum post count of x (all time) or y posts in the last year required"

with y < x is something to be considered for the next election.

I would not pinpoint it to the account age as there are users who have registered long ago but became active just recently. I know I was registered for over an year before I actively started posting.

There's also the issue of people who came back recently and don't remember/don't have anymore the login for their forum account and had to create a new one.
That aside, it's not a bad idea, it could involve the newcomers more than they currently are.

deni wrote:

Iƒrit wrote:

deni wrote:So the suggestion is to lower the post count requirement?

ok again my apologies I was a tad vague, no not necessarily. Perhaps a page, that explain what the thread is for and instructions for what they need to do (weather it be a post a request bellow or something else) to get an exception to the restriction(s), so that they may have a chance to vote for who they feel is the best representative. Also the thread that entails election rules and/or similar ones should show this information with a link to the page as to help guide such users to where they can be heard.

I know its not perfect. But at least they have a greater chance of being able to vote. Either that or lift the restriction completely.

Would that not open a can of worms as it will be not objective criteria that make someone able to vote but exceptions granted by the election team?

thanks for the clarification in PM,

this is why you outline what it takes to receive this exception, as of now its not even an option (far as I can tell) and its just as bias as what is already in place (possibly more ), but it does give the (admittedly) rare circumstance where some users do log on forums to read and rarely reply, a chance to partake in voting. I admit its not perfect, nor is the current system, but its an improvement, even dropping the restriction is an improvement (provided you can control the in-flux of multies), at least IMO.

Cole wrote:

deni wrote:A rule like

"Minimum post count of x (all time) or y posts in the last year required"

with y < x is something to be considered for the next election.

I would not pinpoint it to the account age as there are users who have registered long ago but became active just recently. I know I was registered for over an year before I actively started posting.

There's also the issue of people who came back recently and don't remember/don't have anymore the login for their forum account and had to create a new one.
That aside, it's not a bad idea, it could involve the newcomers more than they currently are.

Yes it could be a good idea. Still would prevent people like the person who started this thread from coming and voting because they were asked to. (yes Ifrit damn speculation).

That would preclude newer users. So I do not favor that. Incidentally, I think the current requirement is a bit low.

deni wrote:That would disallow newly joined, active forum users to vote though and tip the scales to the favour of users, who have been long here and have remained active during all the years.

Favoring the people who would have better insight into how the forum is run and theoretically being much more qualified to vote. I still do not favor that suggestion though.

Another system that would force activity over time would be to hold elections at even more randomish times and require minimum post count of 100 + 30 posts within last month. It would require frequent activity, but it would also be fairly unfair to those that do not post as much.