StarGateWars Forums

Why should any group of users get special treatment?

If administrators are to be forbidden from one part of it, should perhaps also those that cannot follow the rules, with say three or more warnings be forbidden from the election? Would not such count of warnings indicate an incapability to function well in the forum community?

Remember, the ombudsman (or ombudswoman) will not be the shining white knight of public opinion the way some of you seem to think...

He (or she) will a neutral party between users and the administrator team, and is answerable to the latter. He (or she) does not have (and has never had) any power over the administrators, aside from the power of his (or her) words...

We cannot recall the exact number of times that ombudsmen have managed to convince us (and other admins) to change opinion on some case or other, but it is quite a few times...

As we mentioned earlier, we have no intention of nominating anyone, unless there is a good candidate near the end with one too few nominations, and then only to give that candidate a chance to join the election...

I do not disagree with admin people voting for or nominating someone, they have a voice also..and I do not think any of them is as bias as you think they are..I have been spanked by them ALL for misconduct, have massed them all (I think) for my own reasons and have been mistreated by NONE in any way shape or form. Every instance bar none they have been right in either backing me or admonishing me for whatever the cases were.. Is this on topic?

speaking as former ombudsman (so can't resist to use the old olour again)

it has happend in the past where admins have voted on the ombudsman elections. the last election i took part in i had an admin and 2 GM's voting against me, those were the only staff member votes cast. now ad first i gotta admit it pissed me off and i doubted their neutrality.

now after a few hours of letting it sink in i went 'screw them, they are making a mistake'. afte that the mentality changed to 'i'll prove em wrong'

see a good ombudsman (not claiming i ever was, i can't judge myself) needs to have a very thick skin. if you can't take other ppl liking other things, if you can't take different opinions and if you can't take working with someone who would've rather worked with someone else: NEVER RUN FOR OMBUDSMAN !

cuz here is an eye opener, the ombudsman will often disagree with moderators becausse of his different vieuwpoints, there will be alot of behind the scene's shouting and arguing. new this is not a bad thing ad all, as long as it's constructive and gets you somewhere.

so to sumerise for you, if you can't take having an admin voting against you then you shoudn'tbe an ombudsman and the admin was right to vote against you. admins only care about the welfaire of the forum, just like all mods and ombudsmen should. wheter or not you are the best of the forum is also their call

someone drop me a note for next elections, wanne screen the candidates then

there should be no conflict of interests between admin - ombu . Ombu shall be nominated and voted by only users, the admin team shall have the right not to accept the application due to poor background.

This thread is stupid. Everyone posting in this thread is stupid. Well, except for me of course. I am, after all, only the most intelligent person, EVER.

ANYWAY. All I see is the same old tired bull **Filtered** misconceptions about the Oms. You all think they have some sort of power, whereas in reality the only power they have is to press the post button in sections no normal user can see. The admins get to make the decisions on all of the cases, the Oms only make recommendations. Not only does it not hurt to have the admins voting on Oms, it actually has the opposite effect. If an Oms is elected that the admins get along well with and respect, then it's infinitely more likely that the Oms is going to be able to persuade the admins to change their mind on a case.

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.

deni wrote: the admins are not only admins but forum users as well.

In RL a president can vote in a parliamentary election too

Dr. House wrote: Not only does it not hurt to have the admins voting on Oms, it actually has the opposite effect. If an Oms is elected that the admins get along well with and respect, then it's infinitely more likely that the Oms is going to be able to persuade the admins to change their mind on a case.

^This

The Ombudsman is a mediator; he does not exist to 'side' with the users, but nor does he exist to 'side' with the mods. He's there as a go-between, and a neutral third party. As both 'sides' will be dealing with him, I believe both sides have a right to vote.

I'm not sure if the 'another puppet' remark is a swipe at me and Jack, but FYI we sided against the administration just as often as we sided with them. Just because we might have not have agreed with you once upon a time, it doesn't mean we're in anybody's pocket.

exactly what is wrong with it?

in what way is it cheating or anything in which this argument is turning into. Cba to read all of it as it is bull.

My 2 cents

~Wolve