The Editor would like to point out that he has never created a poll before, and apologises in advance if he has mucked up.
Simms
One thing I've nopticed though is that there are 2 yes' votes and one 'no' vote in this poll which could scew results unless the two 'yes' votes are combined to show how the public feel.
Darren
| QUOTE (Darrenworthy @ May 2 2006, 07:47 PM) |
| This is a good idea and would give all the players more input into SSS each week. One thing I've nopticed though is that there are 2 yes' votes and one 'no' vote in this poll which could scew results unless the two 'yes' votes are combined to show how the public feel. Darren |
Thank you, I was thinking I might do occasional polls in this nature, on big events, so that we can see where public opinion does actually lie on some things. And as you say, it brings more interaction to the SSS.
And there are 2 'yes' votes to give the poll some more variation, between people who are absolutely convinced, and those who want to see more investigation into the case. In hindsight, I should maybe have included another no-related response.
| QUOTE (HPSimms @ May 2 2006, 12:46 PM) |
| There has been no evidence presented by the CNF so far, just hearsay, speculation and assumptions made without full knowledge of the events. Simms |
You must have nodded off again Simms. Still, I'm sure someone in your position can't be bothered with a trifle like facts...
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
aka
Rich Fanning
[OOC: As a point of clarification for the Poll - The Gas Giant Brighton in the New Sussex System was the targetted planetary body. The Nuclear strike caused a cascade reaction that destroyed the moon Coombes and radiation/debris fallout killed over 25,000 civilians on the moon Botolphs.]
-------------------------------------
I may have reported this as abuse as well.
Please ignore
| QUOTE (gordon @ May 2 2006, 08:30 PM) |
| I like the idea of the poll here, but I don't like the idea of discussing the case here. Any chance we can keep the IC stuff to the yahoo forum. I'd hate to see the IC stuff spill over into this one. |
That's a fair point Gordon. I think there was maybe a check box somewhere that lets me post a poll and dissallow comments to it. I'll test that out next time.
Excellent idea, no reason 'trial by media' shouldn't happen in the peripheries as well.
Of course some of us prefer to read more intellectual papers rather than that SSS rag
| QUOTE (gordon @ May 2 2006, 08:30 PM) |
I like the idea of the poll here, but I don't like the idea of discussing the case here. Any chance we can keep the IC stuff to the yahoo forum. I'd hate to see the IC stuff spill over into this one. |
Is there a way of having a poll of this sort on the yahoo forum? That would probably help keep this forum OOC.
Darren
Also opens up the possibility of a "Your Say" section to respond to articles in the SSS and/or an additional reporting tool that Simon can lift articles from?
Like the idea of polls seeking public opinion.Nice one.
IC:
Although I have made some comments on this subject elsewhere I have voted I don't know.
It is true that the CNF have become the innocent victims in someone elses war,albeit a war conducted in a system claimed by the CNF.
As yet the CNF haven't put forward indesputable evidence showing that Mr Jordan was in fact responsible for the attack.
Mr Jordan says no,the COH Emperor says yes he is.
The word of one being against another is not enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused party.Even the word of an Emperor.
If the CNF can prove that Mr Jordan is souley responsible for the attack then yes he needs to answer for it as does the COH Emperor and the ARC,the parties he was employed by at that time.
ZN.
FET CEO.
I think these kind of things add an extrat interactive dimension to the game. Maybe a question about the best forum, but nevertheless a good idea, irrespective of the topic - providing it's major news and not simply a poll on what colour I should repaint my ship...
Mark
IC
I have expressed a 'yes there is a case to answer' vote as I feel the magnitude of the accusations and the evidence put forward demands further investigation of the sort normally left to the province of the courts.
Janos Wolf
RIP
Interesting issue.
Technically speaking, the only viable answers could be #2 and #4:
Yes he does have a case to answer due to incriminating evidence put forward by the CNF.
And No I don't know (yet) what is at the bottom of the situation.
It is not possible at this stage to state that the man is a war criminal, much less "obviously" so. That is something a regular court would have to decide in a trial, which in turn is what it meant with "a case to answer". Until then it's Innocent until proven guilty - but that's not the same thing as "clearly innocent" as suggested in the poll under #1.
Also, there are two distinct questions here:
1. Was Ian Jordan involved in a the incident to the extend of having full control over the launch of the operation and thus, responsibility for the events that transpired;
2. Irrespective of 1. above, should the attack be classed as a war crime and/or deliberate use of weapons of mass destruction?
I'm tempted to assume that a court would assume the former but am undecided on the latter. If I was his attorney I would point out that the collateral damage incurred was totally unforeseen and not to be expected, while the attack on the TCA could be seen as justified if the COH/ARC are at war with the TCA in general, or alternatively as a legitimate police action against a criminal if the ARC are considered a ruling power over the TCA. The status of the TCA (criminal, refugee, citizen) is arguable.
</lawyer mode>
If this forum is to be kept ooc, the poll here should really be something along the lines of whether a PD of an affiliation is responsible for his own actions, even if there is an in-game npc involved and if that PD moves affiliation does the guilt go to the new affiliation, or stay with the old - or a mixture of the two.
Mark
That leaves two options - make Simon a moderator (either to help the rest of us out, or purely to be able to raise polls) - or have people send requests for polls to the moderators. I wouldn't be upset at either route
I agree that a reasonable number of topical polls are a generally good idea - I also agree that this may not be the best place for them, as they will invariably lead to IC discussion, which is not the purpose of this board.
Dan
| QUOTE (Dan Reed @ May 3 2006, 08:37 PM) |
| the yahoogroup is set for mods-only creation of polls... Personally (having seen several forums or lists where polls are open to any and all to create), I don't think it would be a good idea to open this up to everybody. That leaves two options - make Simon a moderator (either to help the rest of us out, or purely to be able to raise polls) - or have people send requests for polls to the moderators. I wouldn't be upset at either route |
I'm having hellish troubles logging on to Yahoogroups at the moment, if we go for the yahoogroups route, I would probably have to send the polls to one of the existing mods for submission, or my screams of frustration at the Yahell log-in procedure would surely wake the dead.
As a tentative suggestion, I offer that the next poll I'll post here, mark it clearly IC, and disallow comments. And we'll see how that works.
Of course, having said this, I'll probably struggle to think up any new polls.
is that what the poll is for?
If so, then are we saying then that if the Player of Ian Jordan simply killed himself and setup a new political, this pol wouldnt have existed, or would you still go after him?
if its the case that the player gets attention due to historical groups he played in im in trouble
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ May 4 2006, 12:15 PM) |
| is that what the poll is for? |
Nope, mostly the poll is for assessing how convinced the 'general public' are by the evidence the CNF presented regarding the destruction of Coombes. So that I can reflect that overall feeling when I write the story about it for the SSS/IGN.
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ May 4 2006, 12:15 PM) |
| are we saying then that if a player does something in one affiliation that "debt" or "action" he carried out is transfered to the next? is that what the poll is for? If so, then are we saying then that if the Player of Ian Jordan simply killed himself and setup a new political, this pol wouldnt have existed, or would you still go after him? if its the case that the player gets attention due to historical groups he played in im in trouble |
Let's call a spade a spade.....
I'd bet that 90%+ of the people vote along "party lines".
Even neutrals usually lean one way or the other.
The vote is interesting for a curiousity factor but I doubt anyone in the CNF block voted in favor of the new GTT leader...let's be real. I also doubt anyone in the IMP block voted against him...
The best and the worst thing about the game is it does reflect how real politics work...
Goth
What are you asking he is innocent of? being involved with setting the nukes? he admitted that, of warcrimes? well that depends who you ask
The first and third answers make sense, either no or yes, the second answer appears to be saying that he was involved, as the cnf showed, but doesn't really say if he's innocent of guilty of any warcrime as such.
so disregarding that voice your left with 8 - innocent, 12 - guility and 7 unsided.. fairly even really
| QUOTE (ptb @ May 4 2006, 02:57 PM) |
| I think the options in the poll are badly worded. What are you asking he is innocent of? being involved with setting the nukes? he admitted that, of warcrimes? well that depends who you ask The first and third answers make sense, either no or yes, the second answer appears to be saying that he was involved, as the cnf showed, but doesn't really say if he's innocent of guilty of any warcrime as such. so disregarding that voice your left with 8 - innocent, 12 - guility and 7 unsided.. fairly even really |
Remember its a news paper poll, so it is not actualy intend to gather information but to provide a a "shocking" soundbite for SSS. After the poll closes, it is the editors job to twist the results so they make the best story. The more vauge the polls the easyer it is to generate a good headline.
I
if i am to get the sport, then can you forward the images usually associated with the sport please.
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ May 4 2006, 12:15 PM) |
| are we saying then that if a player does something in one affiliation that "debt" or "action" he carried out is transfered to the next? |
To me, it's the character's actions that follow him/her - sometimes a player changes aff (and becomes a new character), sometimes a player's character moves. In the latter case, I believe it to be perfectly acceptable IC to deem that character accountable for past actions while part of an old aff....it's the same being that (allegedly) did the crime
Dan
| QUOTE (Gandolph @ May 4 2006, 05:15 AM) |
| are we saying then that if a player does something in one affiliation that "debt" or "action" he carried out is transfered to the next? is that what the poll is for? |
There have been numerous cases of players Aff-hopping in the past. Their actions under their former Affs were only a problem when the Character also changed affs with them. If Lord Scrimm decided to join the AFT, would I be allowed in Imperial Space? Most likely not. If I, as a Player, joined the AFT and had a different Political, would there be any reason to deny me access?
From a role-playing perspective, the actions of a Character follow the Character. Had the Player of the Ian Jordan Character announced the creation of a new Character when he took over the COH and reverted to his Ian Jordan Character when he left the COH and took up the reigns of the GTT, then there would be no issue with the GTT (other than previously existing ones), the IMP's would probably be in rare agreement with the Confederacy over the issue and the COH would be royally screwed...
...that's not what happened.
Maintaining the separation between Player and Character actions is very difficult at times. I have encountered quite a number of Players that strive to maintain that separation of action and their efforts make for a very satisfying and rewarding game experience. It also means that there are times where expedience and OOC knowledge have to be suspended, even at the cost of carefully laid plans and considerable expense. Often, it means having to take ownership of situations that occur that did not turn out quite as expected. That is a choice that many have elected to make. Others may see this choice as strange, weak or a strategic advantage to exploit. I prefer to think that it strengthens the long-term enjoyment of the game.
Rich Fanning
aka
Lord Lawrence Scrimm
CIA Intelligence Director
I have role-played in many different forms over the years and have always agreed with the description of role-play as "putting yourself at a disadvantage to maintain your character".
Incidentally, Simon is an excellent example of this, as someone who doesn't take advantage of his SSS Editor position for in-character gains - though I am sure that he does use it to have his way with the ladies
| QUOTE (Wraith @ May 4 2006, 08:06 PM) |
| Incidentally, Simon is an excellent example of this, as someone who doesn't take advantage of his SSS Editor position for in-character gains - though I am sure that he does use it to have his way with the ladies |
Yes, I just don't know how I would function without the SSS groupies.
Now theres's a character with an overated view of his importance in the galaxy
I suspect that the IMP would not eject the AFT from their space if Lord Scrimm joined them. Banning individual PCs is just verbal hype and totally unenforcable.
Geoff
| QUOTE (HPSimms @ May 5 2006, 01:00 PM) |
| Banning individual PCs is just verbal hype and totally unenforcable. |
Unless someone nice sold you all his position numbers
) thought he could trade without you noticing? | QUOTE (ptb @ May 5 2006, 01:18 PM) | ||
Unless someone nice sold you all his position numbers |
Possibly, but who in his/her right mind is going to send their Political Character swanning round the Peripheries.
Geoff
| QUOTE |
| Possibly, but who in his/her right mind is going to send their Political Character swanning round the Peripheries. Geoff |
My political has 'swanned' about the peripheries. Spending his life sitting in a bunker would not be in character for my political.
| QUOTE (Rich Farry @ May 9 2006, 07:34 AM) | ||
My political has 'swanned' about the peripheries. Spending his life sitting in a bunker would not be in character for my political. |
Which brings us back to my original question.