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

[fine_dine_decca]

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?

[Iƒrit]

why not a vote count or a year count requirement.
150+ posts or 2 years?

[RoKeT]

Oh for godsakes

If you don't post why do you need to worry about an Ombudsman as you won't get any damn warnings as you have no damn post... if you have been here for 6 years yo have 70 plus post wow a whole ten post per year... No you do not deserve a chance to vote... and Turkey... Noobert is a nice guy I can not believe you just said that about him... Turkey you used to be a spammer not this extremeist and I miss that Turkey at least not everything out of your mouth wasn't a damn recording and the same damn thing every post

[~Dä Vinci~]

i agree.. i was allowed to vote because of my post count but mine are all from buying and selling uu and at's lol, and the odd comment here and there.. the post count rule is there becuase of people making multiple accounts and just voting there friends so i think ifrit has the right idea.

[Ĕɱƿŷ]

Just because they aren't in the temple doesn't mean they aren't spam. I'll direct you to a thread with epidemic known as 'Noobert-Spam'

viewtopic.php?f=128&t=182843&start=30

How is any of this relevant?

Anywho, people may not post but be forum viewers. They might not won't to post for a number of reasons and when they figure they can improve the game they're told they're not welcome, like a Noobert in a female toilet!

[Kjarkur]

by judging posts not on QUANTITY but by QUALITY.

May I ask who will judge what is quality and what isn't ?

I'm sure there can be found a good solution to this - how ever I don't see that solution being somebody's new job being the judge on quality of people's posts.

-KJ

[Mordack]

It's a nice idea, but I'm not sure how we could judge people's posts on 'quality' which is an entirely subjective concept. The current system of requirements is admittedly imperfect, but nonetheless more viable than the alternatives.

[jedi~tank]

Man screw all the judging, thats making something simple complicated..150 posts and 3 months, ez

[RoKeT]

Man screw all the judging, thats making something simple complicated..150 posts and 3 months, ez

+1

[Mordack]

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

[RoKeT]

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

Agreed... wouldn't that make it so anyone and there mothers could vote, whether they were active or not as long as they ahd an account... Ombudsman are for the people who get in trouble... you are not getting in trouble with no posts so why need an ombudsman?

[ƒëmmë ƒatalë]

this adult white renting female says we need to be careful Decca of allowing ppl that only come on a few times a year from being cohersed into voting on something they know little bout except a friend/alliance mate is running and wants the vote.

the current system is good as it guards against ppl that wouldn't normally post flooding the forum with spam just to get post count up enough to vote.

Voting should remain the right of those that regually use the forum, want a vote become more involved in the forum community ..

[RoKeT]

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

Agreed... wouldn't that make it so anyone and there mothers could vote, whether they were active or not as long as they ahd an account..

Not quite.

As I said in my initial reply to his post, the 3 month activity requirement should still remain in effect.
It would allow older accounts, that may not have the posting requirement but are still active participants in the community to take part in the election.

The only extra work involved would be to check the user registration date, which is listed in the same place as the post count that is checked (in the usergroup management page). I do not see how it will be extra work.

Sorry but whats the 3 month activity thing? I thought there was no way to check if they had signed in before that date?

[Mordack]

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

Agreed... wouldn't that make it so anyone and there mothers could vote, whether they were active or not as long as they ahd an account..

Not quite.

As I said in my initial reply to his post, the 3 month activity requirement should still remain in effect.
It would allow older accounts, that may not have the posting requirement but are still active participants in the community to take part in the election.

The only extra work involved would be to check the user registration date, which is listed in the same place as the post count that is checked (in the usergroup management page). I do not see how it will be extra work.

So you're suggesting that the minimum post requirement be rescinded for older accounts which have been active in the last three months?

[Mordack]

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

Agreed... wouldn't that make it so anyone and there mothers could vote, whether they were active or not as long as they ahd an account..

Not quite.

As I said in my initial reply to his post, the 3 month activity requirement should still remain in effect.
It would allow older accounts, that may not have the posting requirement but are still active participants in the community to take part in the election.

The only extra work involved would be to check the user registration date, which is listed in the same place as the post count that is checked (in the usergroup management page). I do not see how it will be extra work.

Sorry but whats the 3 month activity thing? I thought there was no way to check if they had signed in before that date?

There is no way to check when a user signs in (to my knowledge), however there are ways to track activity. The easiest being posts, but there are other ways... such as a user changing certain account details (which will appear in their usernotes automatically), record of sent private messages, etc.

Posts are the easiest way to track forum activity, they are however not the only way.

Those of you who work up a semi-annual sweat over the extent to which the ombudsman election is a 'popularity contest' and 'run by alliances' would rupture yourselves if Ifrit's suggestion was implemented.

Agreed... wouldn't that make it so anyone and there mothers could vote, whether they were active or not as long as they ahd an account..

Not quite.

As I said in my initial reply to his post, the 3 month activity requirement should still remain in effect.
It would allow older accounts, that may not have the posting requirement but are still active participants in the community to take part in the election.

The only extra work involved would be to check the user registration date, which is listed in the same place as the post count that is checked (in the usergroup management page). I do not see how it will be extra work.

So you're suggesting that the minimum post requirement be rescinded for older accounts which have been active in the last three months?

I am saying that an alternative to the posting requirement be considered, to make it more fair for everyone in an attempt to lessen the imperfections of the current system.

And are you putting what you outlined in your post, and I attempted to clarify, as an alternative to be considered?