StarGateWars Forums

Well I couldn't post in that section, and felt it was probably a general related issue anyway.

But should an Admin be able to vote for an Ombudsman? I don't need to see the arguement that if an Admin is posting as a user then yes, because we how many times would an Admin actually ever need to appeal to them?

For an Admin to vote for someone, would potentially show show degree of bias, that they would like another puppet working for them if you will

anyway what's everyone elses thoughts on this?

Eärendil wrote:Saying, I know that you are probably talking about me (lulz).

There is no voting at all for a while, I did nominate someone who I think would do a good job though.

Well the question isn't if they could do a good job or not......It's completely biased for an Admin to even get a say on who could potentially be the next ombudsman. You could even go as far to say mods shouldn't get a vote.

If we really going to treat this post as anything but a "friendly face of admin" then people being elected actually have to have the rights an ability to to put problems right.

An Ombudsman should have the ability to put a case directly to Jason if they do not feel it is being dealt adequately enough by the administration. Although I admit this has to be in super extreme cases...but the lines of communication need to be there.

This position has become somewhat diluted over a period of time. I fear a lot of people just dont bother to use this function as they believe is it has no weight behind it. Ex Admins should also not be able to take up this role if you want a truely unbiased person.

I do not see anything wrong with an admin voting for an ombudsman. It is a right given to every forum user who qualifies by fulfilling a few conditions and the admins are not only admins but forum users as well.

In RL a president can vote in a parliamentary election too


The role of the ombudsman is to present cases to the admins and lead a discussion about actions of the forum staff. He is not a control institution, but a mediator in disputes.

Having an ombudsman who the admins of the forum can work well with would increase the quality of the discussions and help the decision finding.

Eärendil wrote:I Also disagree with the oms being able to take something to Jason regarding forum issues, the Ombudsman reports to the Admin team, not to Jason during their mediation between the staff and forum users.

Again you miss the point, whether you agree with it or not, it should happen.

Example: If an Admin was to ban someone, you cant possibly tell me that any case put to the oms would be fairly dealt with.

@ Deni, the Oms is meant to be a completely impartial body....The staff of these boards should have no influence over them. Yes your arguement maybe valid that you too are a normal forum user, but by becoming an admin I feel when it comes to oms you should lose this particular "normal user" right....

Eärendil wrote:

renegadze wrote:

Eärendil wrote:I Also disagree with the oms being able to take something to Jason regarding forum issues, the Ombudsman reports to the Admin team, not to Jason during their mediation between the staff and forum users.

Again you miss the point, whether you agree with it or not, it should happen.

Example: If an Admin was to ban someone, you cant possibly tell me that any case put to the oms would be fairly dealt with.

That has actually happened before and it has gone both ways a few times, the same goes with warnings. You give too many things too little credit.

No I don't, because I like many others, am a normal forum user, and we tend not to have rose tinted glasses about how things go on around here

An Admin should have the right to vote. But not nominate ppl. cos no matter the truth it will always look like favouritism if the person they nominate gets elected.

And yes Ombusman is meant to be impartial. I wouldn't like to see someone get in that it looks like is in one of the admin's pockets.

Would be great if a list of the Ombudsman's exact powers and responsibilities were posted as well. Because all issues I have had so far have seemed to be in ombudsman's own words beyond their jurisdiction.

remember... A candidate needs five nominations... There are three admins that post often on the forums (bazsy likes staying in the background), so even if the admins all agreed upon a single candidate, it would not be enough... and to calm you down... we have no favorite candidate in mind, so we see no need to nominate anyone ourselves at this point...

If however, near the end of the nominations, there should be someone we see as a potentially good candidate with only four nominations, we might nominate that one to give him or her or it a chance in the final election...

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:An Admin should have the right to vote. But not nominate ppl.

+1

Zeratul wrote:remember... A candidate needs five nominations... There are three admins that post often on the forums (bazsy likes staying in the background), so even if the admins all agreed upon a single candidate, it would not be enough... and to calm you down... we have no favorite candidate in mind, so we see no need to nominate anyone ourselves at this point...

If however, near the end of the nominations, there should be someone we see as a potentially good candidate with only four nominations, we might nominate that one to give him or her or it a chance in the final election...

That's still over 50% of the vote to getting someone nominated, which makes the Admins in a good position to getting someone on the list......we'd very much like to get away from the last 6 months....lets empower an Oms person to carry out an effective role. Lets get away from biased people that Admins have a direct influence over.

oh yes lets have the staff nominate for us, there is only more staff then there are users, no offense SS, but Staff should not be able to nominate an Ombudsman

cmon its not a problem who nominates or votes , cause the admin and moderators are outnumbered so the majority wins, no problem everyones happy

SuperSaiyan wrote:

renegadze wrote:

Zeratul wrote:remember... A candidate needs five nominations... There are three admins that post often on the forums (bazsy likes staying in the background), so even if the admins all agreed upon a single candidate, it would not be enough... and to calm you down... we have no favorite candidate in mind, so we see no need to nominate anyone ourselves at this point...

If however, near the end of the nominations, there should be someone we see as a potentially good candidate with only four nominations, we might nominate that one to give him or her or it a chance in the final election...

That's still over 50% of the vote to getting someone nominated, which makes the Admins in a good position to getting someone on the list......we'd very much like to get away from the last 6 months....lets empower an Oms person to carry out an effective role. Lets get away from biased people that Admins have a direct influence over.

You say the administration will nominate someone whom they have influence over and will tend to favor them. And the community will not choose someone to favor the community? The Bias Argument is a two way street.

You want impartially elected people but want only one side of the coin to choose the person. Yes that makes sense.

I think staff and non-staff have every right to nominate and vote for the ombudsman. period.

The Bias is not a two way street, of course the forum users will want a oms person who is going to be fair, but you're forgetting it's the Admin/Mods that have the power, there should only be a need to bring in an Omb Person when that power is not used correctly....therefore havign the staff pick someone who will favour them when the complaint is about them is just silly

I don't see the problem. Even if you claim showing bias/favoritism i dont see the problem. We all nominate someone or vote for a specific individual and that is our bias/favoritism. The fact that the admins are admins has nothing to do with fairness because in the end if you think they are going to be a admin puppet or whatever the cliam is DONT VOTE FOR THEM. Its my personal opinion that the Admins are incredibly active and no more about the forum and its community then most common users and if they want a specific person maybe you should look at the reasons before claiming there to likely be a bias.

The Ombudsman works with the Staff to resolve issues that users bring forward. Ideally we would not need an Ombudsman because the users should be able to talk to the Mods and resolve almost any problem they have using that avenue. Unfortunately it of course is not an ideal situation here, so we need a Ombudsman to investigate all sides of a case and bring a recommendation to the Admins and inform them of the aspects of the dispute or query, whatever.

That being said ..... of course the Staff want to vote for someone who is going to work well with them and do a good job. The staff is going to work with the Ombudsman more than any of the users, but we should not get a vote (or at least the Admins)? You say the Admins or even the staff might just choose someone who will agree with them every time (I assume) well the exact same could be said for users, hoping and voting for an Ombudsman who will always agree with the users and disagree with the Staff.

We must just assume that all parties involved, and all parties deserve to be involved and deserve a vote, will vote with intelligence and choose who will do the best job. That is... take it seriously and put in the work and time on every case.

RoKeT wrote:

ƒëmmë ƒatalë wrote:An Admin should have the right to vote. But not nominate ppl.

+1

+1 Sounds fair