StarGateWars Forums

The power of the Oms was never downgraded. Ask Buck, Ask Myself, Ask the old Oms such as mystie, jack, and piano, even ask Jason himself.


If Oms can overpower admins then why do we have admins at all?

There are 3 admins to stop the "monarchy" system. To stop 1 man having "All the Keys". But yet now people think that the Oms alone (as it is a 1 man job, and his decision to have a helper or not) should have the power to hold all the keys? to be a single Monarch?

You did good work Zeek, I thank you for all you did. I do hope you can and will return to forums as a regular poster one day.

Lore wrote:The power of the Oms was never downgraded. Ask Buck, Ask Myself, Ask the old Oms such as mystie, jack, and piano, even ask Jason himself.


If Oms can overpower admins then why do we have admins at all?

There are 3 admins to stop the "monarchy" system. To stop 1 man having "All the Keys". But yet now people think that the Oms alone (as it is a 1 man job, and his decision to have a helper or not) should have the power to hold all the keys? to be a single Monarch?

You did good work Zeek, I thank you for all you did. I do hope you can and will return to forums as a regular poster one day.

Then i wonder how Robe got that BS in her head

Who watches the watchmen?
Should mods exercise the "split topic" button on this thread? one for farewells to who seems to be a much appreciated player and forum member and one for what seems to be an important and heated discussion?

So a question I can probably see the answer to... but have to ask it to I guess get people thinking.

Why is there an Ombudsman if the Admins are just going to decide in the end anyways? Is he just there to filter out the cases, or can he really do anything? If Mane decided to overturn a warning or something of the sort, then the Admins have to approve anyways, so why have Mane there at all?

I know what *I* would say to this, but what is *your* answer?

Mormegil wrote:So a question I can probably see the answer to... but have to ask it to I guess get people thinking.

Why is there an Ombudsman if the Admins are just going to decide in the end anyways? Is he just there to filter out the cases, or can he really do anything? If Mane decided to overturn a warning or something of the sort, then the Admins have to approve anyways, so why have Mane there at all?

I know what *I* would say to this, but what is *your* answer?

this is exactly why i'm leaving, the former ombudsmen could descide, admins always followed the recomendations even if it was not written down they should. now they just vote on it.

the ombudsman apeal and the admin apeal has become one and the same, in the end it has just become an admin apeal where the ombudsman does the work for them

even tough i won't do it anymore even if the ombudsman is brought back to what it should be i strongly recommend for the good of this forum:

restore the ombudsman back to full power, turn him back into the 3th neutral forum party who does all in his power and uses every possible insight in a case to make a descision.

on another note i think there should be a small change to the ombudsman:

the new elected ombudsman becomes the understudy of the previous one for a month, they work togheter on cases. that way the new ombudsman isn't trown directly in the fire and doesn't end up making a couple bad calls in the beginning of his term wich makes it.

and this could be done very very easely:

hold the elections for new ombudsman a month before the term of the old one expires. since i left there isn't an understudy so it can perfectly be done now becausse manetherens term ends august 20th. if you get a new ombudsman elected by 1st of august and prolong mantherens term to 31st of august then you end up with a 1month overlaps in wich experience can be passed down on.


i hope the one to follow in my footsteps does it like i do:
from the heart with alot of effort, it's not an easy job but in the end when you can realy help ppl it's worth it

zeekomkommer wrote:

Mormegil wrote:So a question I can probably see the answer to... but have to ask it to I guess get people thinking.

Why is there an Ombudsman if the Admins are just going to decide in the end anyways? Is he just there to filter out the cases, or can he really do anything? If Mane decided to overturn a warning or something of the sort, then the Admins have to approve anyways, so why have Mane there at all?

I know what *I* would say to this, but what is *your* answer?

this is exactly why i'm leaving, the former ombudsmen could descide, admins always followed the recomendations even if it was not written down they should. now they just vote on it.

the ombudsman apeal and the admin apeal has become one and the same, in the end it has just become an admin apeal where the ombudsman does the work for them

even tough i won't do it anymore even if the ombudsman is brought back to what it should be i strongly recommend for the good of this forum:

restore the ombudsman back to full power, turn him back into the 3th neutral forum party who does all in his power and uses every possible insight in a case to make a descision.

on another note i think there should be a small change to the ombudsman:

the new elected ombudsman becomes the understudy of the previous one for a month, they work togheter on cases. that way the new ombudsman isn't trown directly in the fire and doesn't end up making a couple bad calls in the beginning of his term wich makes it.

and this could be done very very easely:

hold the elections for new ombudsman a month before the term of the old one expires. since i left there isn't an understudy so it can perfectly be done now becausse manetherens term ends august 20th. if you get a new ombudsman elected by 1st of august and prolong mantherens term to 31st of august then you end up with a 1month overlaps in wich experience can be passed down on.


i hope the one to follow in my footsteps does it like i do:
from the heart with alot of effort, it's not an easy job but in the end when you can realy help ppl it's worth it

Zeek, I do not know who led you to believe that the power of the ombudsman has been diminished. Thus there is nothing for him to be restored to.

This is and was never the case.

Mormegil wrote:So a question I can probably see the answer to... but have to ask it to I guess get people thinking.

Why is there an Ombudsman if the Admins are just going to decide in the end anyways? Is he just there to filter out the cases, or can he really do anything? If Mane decided to overturn a warning or something of the sort, then the Admins have to approve anyways, so why have Mane there at all?

I know what *I* would say to this, but what is *your* answer?

I will try my best to address your question properly.

The Oms was created to offer an outsiders veiw to the admins. What they do is bring any worthy case to the admins that is brought to them. They also close down bogus or clear cut cases helping to lighten the load on the admin team. When admins say "Its a clear rule violation" then cryies of bias are heard, but when a forum elected Oms says the same, it is accepted and things move on. If the Oms sees some descrepancy, or unjust, he then does some research, gather any needed info, and presents it to the admins, who are above the mods. They then look at the new evidence, and the outsiders veiw, and decide to stay or over turn the decision. That is the entire pourpose of going to the 3 admin system. To stop the "monachy" that exists when 1 man has all the power.

They have never been able to over turn an admin decision. No past oms has, ask them. I have never known them to have that power, Buck has never known them to have that power, and when asked for clarity after 1 bann and 2 warnnings were over turned (without 2 of the 3 admins, the mods, or the general public ever being informed) even jason himself stated they never had that power.

zeekomkommer wrote:this is exactly why i'm leaving, the former ombudsmen could descide, admins always followed the recomendations even if it was not written down they should. now they just vote on it.
Mate, I would love for you to prove that. Because it is not a fact or even the truth. We ALWAYS voted on it, and we did NOT always follow prior oms recomendations. Since you can see and read the oms section you should know this.

the ombudsman apeal and the admin apeal has become one and the same, in the end it has just become an admin apeal where the ombudsman does the work for them
This is something that confuses me, what is this "admin appeal" you keep speaking of? and show me some forum of guidlines that explain it? I am an Admin and I don't know it. From me experiance the Oms was created for this pourpose. To bring things before admins that might have been missed, or handled incorrectly. Seems to me a step has been created that never existed before.

This is how I have always precieved it
1. mod action
2. complaint
3.Oms reveiw, and either stay it, or present it to admins
4.admins either stay it or overturn it based on Oms information

Your saying it should be
1. mod action
2. complaint
3.Oms reveiw, and either stay it, or overturn it (veiwed as overpowering admins)
4.complaint made directly to admins
5. Admins reveiw it, then stay or over turn Oms action

I honestly dont understand the additional steps, the logic behind it, or the need to warn/ban, remove warning/ban, then rewarn/reban. I'm sorry but it escapes me.


even tough i won't do it anymore even if the ombudsman is brought back to what it should be i strongly recommend for the good of this forum:
*Clears throat* THE OMS HAS NOT BEEN REMOVED!

restore the ombudsman back to full power, turn him back into the 3th neutral forum party who does all in his power and uses every possible insight in a case to make a descision.
The Oms has no less power now then it has ever had. No one has yet to be able to produce anything anywhere from past oms, or from jason, or from admin, that states oms has now, or EVER been able to do so, so I still can not understand what power has been stripped from them. If oms can overturn admins, then why do we have admins? I thought we went to a 3 admin system so there was no "monach/monarchy". What is being proposed is that Oms is said monach where one man holds all the power again.

on another note i think there should be a small change to the ombudsman:

the new elected ombudsman becomes the understudy of the previous one for a month, they work togheter on cases. that way the new ombudsman isn't trown directly in the fire and doesn't end up making a couple bad calls in the beginning of his term wich makes it.
I think thats a brilliant plan

and this could be done very very easely:

hold the elections for new ombudsman a month before the term of the old one expires. since i left there isn't an understudy so it can perfectly be done now becausse manetherens term ends august 20th. if you get a new ombudsman elected by 1st of august and prolong mantherens term to 31st of august then you end up with a 1month overlaps in wich experience can be passed down on.
Again, a brilliant Idea


i hope the one to follow in my footsteps does it like i do:
from the heart with alot of effort, it's not an easy job but in the end when you can realy help ppl it's worth it
You did great work in my eyes Zeek.

Lore wrote:

Mormegil wrote:So a question I can probably see the answer to... but have to ask it to I guess get people thinking.

Why is there an Ombudsman if the Admins are just going to decide in the end anyways? Is he just there to filter out the cases, or can he really do anything? If Mane decided to overturn a warning or something of the sort, then the Admins have to approve anyways, so why have Mane there at all?

I know what *I* would say to this, but what is *your* answer?

I will try my best to address your question properly.

The Oms was created to offer an outsiders veiw to the admins. What they do is bring any worthy case to the admins that is brought to them. They also close down bogus or clear cut cases helping to lighten the load on the admin team. When admins say "Its a clear rule violation" then cryies of bias are heard, but when a forum elected Oms says the same, it is accepted and things move on. If the Oms sees some descrepancy, or unjust, he then does some research, gather any needed info, and presents it to the admins, who are above the mods. They then look at the new evidence, and the outsiders veiw, and decide to stay or over turn the decision. That is the entire pourpose of going to the 3 admin system. To stop the "monachy" that exists when 1 man has all the power.

They have never been able to over turn an admin decision. No past oms has, ask them. I have never known them to have that power, Buck has never known them to have that power, and when asked for clarity after 1 bann and 2 warnnings were over turned (without 2 of the 3 admins, the mods, or the general public ever being informed) even jason himself stated they never had that power.

So Robe's assessment is pretty accurate if not, somewhat crude and basic.

Robe wrote:Otherwise they are just glorified secretaries

*playing Devil's Advocate* Just presenting another side to the argument.

Mormegil wrote:So Robe's assessment is pretty accurate if not, somewhat crude and basic.

Robe wrote:Otherwise they are just glorified secretaries

*playing Devil's Advocate* Just presenting another side to the argument.

If that is how you so chose to look at it yes.

I'd also like you and everyone else to realise and understand, Oms
ARE NOT JUST MOD COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT
They have the ability to see all sections below Admin status, nothing but admin business can be hidden from them. They are also here to (OH MY GOSH) HELP THE FORUM USERS. Weather its just basic information, help with promoting and idea, streamlining ideas, helping with presentation. Some day Admins recieve 10 to 20 PMs a day asking for help on odd issues. The Oms help to even the load by accepting some of that load, and by cutting down on bogus claims of "Bias" and "mod abuse". Without the Oms admins have to spend hours going through bogus claims and often much is missed. The Oms have done an exceptional job in this manner.

Also look at the many new programs istituted at Oms request, the parole system, the new "No GC" user group for those who just can't control themselves there also had the Oms seal of approval.

The Oms are the admins eyes from the other side of the fense, and influence me as an admin greatly. We dont always agree, but I have respected every Oms, and feel I have their respect. When they offer FACTS, and not emotions, then I debate those FACTS and give my own FACTS not emotions. Then a real answer born from facts is found.

I still request somebody, anybody, explain to me why

if oms can over throw admins then why do we have admins? Oms is still drafted as a 1 person job and he can decide if he wants an assistant or not, so if the oms want to be single, and he can over throw an admin, Are we not back to having one man with all the power?

Is that not why we split it up to three admins? so that no one person has that power?

Again I ask this as well, If the forum community honestly belives the 3 are corrupt, and call for 2 Oms to give votes and power, how long till the 5 are corrupt? Will we then need 2 more, and 2 more? when will it end?

Does no one understand, Oms is an elected position, so in theory the top alliances will always control the Oms position because so many mindless players vote as they are told, not as they see fit. Even the idea of alliances gain only 1 vote will fail as you will see droves of minor alliances falling under the top alliances tring to gain favor and protection.

As I see it, the Oms are a direct line to Admins, they help to streamline any and every forum user issue.

You say they are secrataries? Then what is a section mod? a blue mod? are they not the same? They carry a specific load given to them, same as the Oms does.

Noone has yet to produce anything that shows were the idea that the Oms could ever overthrow admins came from, No past Oms ever thought they had it. So why now is this become such an issue?

Lore wrote:

Mormegil wrote:So Robe's assessment is pretty accurate if not, somewhat crude and basic.

Robe wrote:Otherwise they are just glorified secretaries

*playing Devil's Advocate* Just presenting another side to the argument.

If that is how you so chose to look at it yes.

I'd also like you and everyone else to realise and understand, Oms
ARE NOT JUST MOD COMPLAINT DEPARTMENT
They have the ability to see all sections below Admin status, nothing but admin business can be hidden from them. They are also here to (OH MY GOSH) HELP THE FORUM USERS. Weather its just basic information, help with promoting and idea, streamlining ideas, helping with presentation. Some day Admins recieve 10 to 20 PMs a day asking for help on odd issues. The Oms help to even the load by accepting some of that load, and by cutting down on bogus claims of "Bias" and "mod abuse". Without the Oms admins have to spend hours going through bogus claims and often much is missed. The Oms have done an exceptional job in this manner.

Also look at the many new programs istituted at Oms request, the parole system, the new "No GC" user group for those who just can't control themselves there also had the Oms seal of approval.

The Oms are the admins eyes from the other side of the fense, and influence me as an admin greatly. We dont always agree, but I have respected every Oms, and feel I have their respect. When they offer FACTS, and not emotions, then I debate those FACTS and give my own FACTS not emotions. Then a real answer born from facts is found.

I still request somebody, anybody, explain to me why

if oms can over throw admins then why do we have admins? Oms is still drafted as a 1 person job and he can decide if he wants an assistant or not, so if the oms want to be single, and he can over throw an admin, Are we not back to having one man with all the power?

Is that not why we split it up to three admins? so that no one person has that power?

Again I ask this as well, If the forum community honestly belives the 3 are corrupt, and call for 2 Oms to give votes and power, how long till the 5 are corrupt? Will we then need 2 more, and 2 more? when will it end?

Does no one understand, Oms is an elected position, so in theory the top alliances will always control the Oms position because so many mindless players vote as they are told, not as they see fit. Even the idea of alliances gain only 1 vote will fail as you will see droves of minor alliances falling under the top alliances tring to gain favor and protection.

As I see it, the Oms are a direct line to Admins, they help to streamline any and every forum user issue.

You say they are secrataries? Then what is a section mod? a blue mod? are they not the same? They carry a specific load given to them, same as the Oms does.

Noone has yet to produce anything that shows were the idea that the Oms could ever overthrow admins came from, No past Oms ever thought they had it. So why now is this become such an issue?

I agree just about 100% with you, the Ombudsman can do a lot more then people are using them for. I wasn't advocating for "more power" for them or for them to have power over the Admin in any way. You have to admit though from the point of view I was giving the Ombudsman seems just like a secretary. Although clearly as you pointed out (like I said I agree almost 100% with), they can do a lot, have the power to investigate a lot, and are a very necessary role. They do work that the Admin simply doesn't have time to do, THOROUGHLY investigating a case (which they have been VERY good at as far as I have seen), they gather all the information for a case, present their opinion, then hand it over to the Admins (the only people with the ultimate power, as it has been and should be) to make the decision on the case.

They aren't exclusively the department for "overturn my warning please" or "get me unbanned please", they can investigate and do a lot more than that, whether the people they were elected to represent (the forum users...) use them for that or not, is their problem and not anyone elses.

Like I tried to get across, I was just giving another side to the argument, and I PERSONALLY agree with what Lore is, as always, most eloquently stating.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well I know this isnt the time nor the place to interject with this comment, but im going to anyways...

So may I be the new Ombudsmen understudy?

(Question was asked with all seriousness)

The admin, with input from the mod team and the users, are currently debating a potential reform of the ombudsman position.

The position has always been an elected one, however, and even if the nature of the role does change I can't see that particular aspect being altered. If you're still interested in taking the role when elections are held, then feel free to have your name put forward with the rest.

Tetrismonkey wrote:

Mordack wrote:

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well I know this isnt the time nor the place to interject with this comment, but im going to anyways...

So may I be the new Ombudsmen understudy?

(Question was asked with all seriousness)

The admin, with input from the mod team and the users, are currently debating a potential reform of the ombudsman position.

The position has always been an elected one, however, and even if the nature of the role does change I can't see that particular aspect being altered. If you're still interested in taking the role when elections are held, then feel free to have your name put forward with the rest.

Looks like another "popular" person will win instead of one "deserving" or even "qualified" for the postion. Non the less, I will do what I normaly do and try my hardest anyways.

I will concede that the system of voting which we have at the moment is an imperfect one, but unfortunately I don't see an alternative. Obviously a system where the forum staff appoint someone to the position would be a deeply flawed one.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well, correct me if im wrong, but when I mod is promoted, or in some cases, a new mod is needed, the Staff or Admins get to choose after looking at aplications.

This is true, but I think that choosing moderators is different to choosing an ombudsman. The admin selecting the ombudsman would be akin to a defendant selecting their jury.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Perhaps, we can do this with the Ombudsmen Understudy. Example:

Open applications for 1 week, where everyone interested in the job applies. After 1 week, Mene, will look over the applications and decide who he thinks is the best out of all the applicants for the job. This way, it gets rid of the popularity voting, but exstablishes a boss-subordinate kind of thing. I think that Mene, seeing as he is the Ombudsman, and knows the job, is truly the best qualified to choose a new subordinate/co-worker.

It's an interesting idea, but if the election process is as flawed as you suggest then I wonder what's going to stop the ombudsman from merely selecting one of his or her cronies as an understudy.

I think one of the fundaments of the whole ombudsman package is the idea that they're being appointed by the community to act on their behalf and represent them during disputes with the moderators. I'm not wholly against your idea, but I'm a little worried that having an unelected understudy might undermine that principle.

Tetrismonkey wrote:Well, correct me if im wrong, but when I mod is promoted, or in some cases, a new mod is needed, the Staff or Admins get to choose after looking at aplications.

Perhaps, we can do this with the Ombudsmen Understudy. Example:

Open applications for 1 week, where everyone interested in the job applies. After 1 week, Mene, will look over the applications and decide who he thinks is the best out of all the applicants for the job. This way, it gets rid of the popularity voting, but exstablishes a boss-subordinate kind of thing. I think that Mene, seeing as he is the Ombudsman, and knows the job, is truly the best qualified to choose a new subordinate/co-worker.

the supermods add imput, but the 3 admins choose via vote, Your problem with a 1 person decideing who gets what, is that nepitism would tend to take over and apply, Whereas with there being 3 admins who vote, the system works well. If you catch my drift, Im not saying Mene would do such a thing but its a fact that giveing 1 person the ultimate power of choice is no good, Hence why we went from one admin, to the three...