Jump to content

Conflict GM


Voodoo Nova

Recommended Posts

The other two are active participants in the war thus they can't be relied upon to make unbiased judgments. Not saying they couldn't make them but suspicions would still be there. The only reason another GM is needed here is because people are complaining about Voodoo's judgments as far as I can tell. Not sure who else we can bring in though or if we really need anyone else in the first place >.>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voodoo has just as much stake in this conflict as any direct participant and any statement to the contrary is ignoring the facts. There was a reason the last election was so partisan.

 

It's a world war.. the only way to be neutral is not to be in the game. I'll volunteer to remove my state from existence to give you guys a decent conflict resolution GM. I'll listen to all sides and all debates and determine what is actually physically possible. Given my level of activity I'd even be able to do so in a reasonable time frame.

 

Update: Nix that activity thing.. I just got accepted into the world of warships alpha.

Edited by Maelstrom Vortex
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I propose myself as a conflict GM, as im uninvolved, I hate you all and i know nothing about war as a general rule of thumb. All GM's bar voodoo are directly involved in the war and it is unbecoming of a GM to rule on a conflict he/she is directly involved in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, you'd automatically be unable to participate in the war, it was already decided you were not going to exist until post war, unless Cent wants to change his posts so his war movements are not coming from your nation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for Voodoo for a reason.

 

I kind of agree with this sentiment.  Absent absolute evidence of bias, which if Voodoo's been a puppet of mine he's been a bad one, there's no reason he should be removed from the position.  He's not made personal attacks on any combatent, he's simply had a different view than one side.  I think its improper someone can be declared not worthy of a job simply cause they rule against one side.  If I was yelling in another hypothetical that idk... Mael was bias, you know the same people yelling about bias right now would have a totally different view.  (In fact in GM teams friendlier to their political disposition they did).  I do not see a need why we need to make an exception in this one case.  You either apply it to every situation as the case may be, or you don't.  You don't apply it to one situation only because someone has their panties in a twist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

I kind of agree with this sentiment.  Absent absolute evidence of bias, which if Voodoo's been a puppet of mine he's been a bad one, there's no reason he should be removed from the position.  He's not made personal attacks on any combatent, he's simply had a different view than one side.  I think its improper someone can be declared not worthy of a job simply cause they rule against one side.  If I was yelling in another hypothetical that idk... Mael was bias, you know the same people yelling about bias right now would have a totally different view.  (In fact in GM teams friendlier to their political disposition they did).  I do not see a need why we need to make an exception in this one case.  You either apply it to every situation as the case may be, or you don't.  You don't apply it to one situation only because someone has their panties in a twist.

 

You would actually be surprised on what he agrees with me about. Granted I am a bit unbiased in the fact that I don't care for one side more than the other. I've picked apart certain things you have said, and he has agreed with me on it, that right there shows he isn't a puppet on a string. He shouldn't be shunned because he deals with people that he finds enjoyable to talk to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I propose we don't, you have two other elected gms to work with. We don't need 4. Then ties can't be broken.


i actually agree with this, but from a punitive perspective

i !@#$@#$ kept telling you guys to NOT elect the people who are ALREADY in the damn conflict

but no!

instead you elect two people on the same side of the same war and leave all of the work to voodoo

well actually, maybe, we shouldn't punish voodoo for being the only GM who can rule on !@#$

from that perspective i'll support it

but i really wish you'd all just deal with the consequences of your actions, which are that one person is making all of the decisions without having anybody else who can rule on anything alongside him

good job Edited by Hereno
Link to comment
Share on other sites

By current rules nothing stopping other GMs from having a say.
Perhaps not a great idea but still possible?


we've been operating under the non-involvement bit for months now

it even cost me an entire fucking storyline i had spent months creating

if we go back on it now i'm going to be less than pleased
Link to comment
Share on other sites

we've been operating under the non-involvement bit for months now

it even cost me an entire !@#$@#$ storyline i had spent months creating

if we go back on it now i'm going to be less than pleased

Having minimum 2 GMs on a war is essential too.

Reason both principles exist and stuff.

So, yeah, we're all rather DOOOOOOOOMED.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...