Voodoo Nova Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) Because all of you are the worst sort of people who believe that this is life or death in a RP, I propose we appoint a conflict GM to work with me on decisions related to the war. Edited October 26, 2014 by Voodoo Nova Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kevin Kingswell Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 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 >.> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 Whose not participating in this war? That's a good start if you need it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maelstrom Vortex Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 (edited) 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. Â 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. Â Update: Nix that activity thing.. I just got accepted into the world of warships alpha. Edited October 26, 2014 by Maelstrom Vortex Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zoot Zoot Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xoindotnler Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 xoin for GM. More uninvolved as me you can't get :smug:Â . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xavier Harkonnen Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 Whose not participating in this war? That's a good start if you need it. Â Technically me, for now... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
supercheese Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 Im also not in this war, and have zero intentions of involving myself in it either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lestari Posted October 26, 2014 Report Share Posted October 26, 2014 I'm still uninvolved myself, though it seems like Zoot may well be favoured as the most appropriate one for the job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I voted for Voodoo for a reason. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I'm not involved. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mogar Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I support tbm as a conflict GM, he'll ban all of us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I'm not involved.  I pick him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Centurius Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Hypnotoad for GM Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Enema Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Hypnotoad for GM  seconded for epic justice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triyun Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 I voted for Voodoo for a reason. Â I kind of agree with this sentiment. Â 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. Â He's not made personal attacks on any combatent, he's simply had a different view than one side. Â I think its improper someone can be declared not worthy of a job simply cause they rule against one side. Â 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. Â (In fact in GM teams friendlier to their political disposition they did). Â I do not see a need why we need to make an exception in this one case. Â You either apply it to every situation as the case may be, or you don't. Â You don't apply it to one situation only because someone has their panties in a twist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lysergide Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Â I kind of agree with this sentiment. Â 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. Â He's not made personal attacks on any combatent, he's simply had a different view than one side. Â I think its improper someone can be declared not worthy of a job simply cause they rule against one side. Â 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. Â (In fact in GM teams friendlier to their political disposition they did). Â I do not see a need why we need to make an exception in this one case. Â You either apply it to every situation as the case may be, or you don't. Â You don't apply it to one situation only because someone has their panties in a twist. Â 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MostGloriousLeader Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Voodoo for GM for life! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 27, 2014 Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 (edited) 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 perspectivei !@#$@#$ kept telling you guys to NOT elect the people who are ALREADY in the damn conflictbut no!instead you elect two people on the same side of the same war and leave all of the work to voodoowell actually, maybe, we shouldn't punish voodoo for being the only GM who can rule on !@#$from that perspective i'll support itbut i really wish you'd all just deal with the consequences of your actions, which are that one person is making all of the decisions without having anybody else who can rule on anything alongside himgood job Edited October 27, 2014 by Hereno Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Voodoo Nova Posted October 27, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 27, 2014 Because no one actually figured it out, this isn't serious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 instead you elect two people on the same side of the same war and leave all of the work to voodoo By current rules nothing stopping other GMs from having a say. Perhaps not a great idea but still possible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hereno Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 By current rules nothing stopping other GMs from having a say.Perhaps not a great idea but still possible? we've been operating under the non-involvement bit for months nowit even cost me an entire fucking storyline i had spent months creatingif we go back on it now i'm going to be less than pleased Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Generalissimo Posted October 29, 2014 Report Share Posted October 29, 2014 we've been operating under the non-involvement bit for months now it even cost me an entire !@#$@#$ 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.