Re: WTH (Ombudsman) nomination discussion
Posted: Sat Feb 07, 2009 3:44 pm
Nice try, but I'm not buying it. 
These are the forums for the GateWa.rs family of text-based space-centred PBBGs
https://talk.gatewa.rs/
Jack's Ghost wrote:Nice try, but I'm not buying it.
Semper wrote:Don't worry though, I am not going to take all this 'running for Ombudsman' seriously... im far too unpopular for being honest, blunt, logical and fun to be given a fair chance at it.No doubt all of EPA will vote for Dundee, all of FS will vote for Mezzanine and so on and so forth...history proves this lesson.
Good luck none the less!
Universe wrote:To start of some serious discussion.. those who nominated themselves are free to reply, as I am curious to see what your responses are.
1. Experience:
I have no SGW mod experience, only my alliance forums. However I have a wealth of conflict resolution experience in my real life work. As I've said before I have a degree in Psychology and am a volunteer mediator for a local organisation dealing with families in crisis. This is generally divorce cases. I've been doing that on and off now for about 2 years.
Since leaving University I have worked in a Customer Services role (I started work in Sept 2005). In my first real job I worked as a Customer Support Advisor for British Telecom's Corporate and SDSL Departments where I handled all customer complaints coming in from BT's Corporate/SDSL customers. (My responsibilities were largely technical, it was often required to talk down an angry customer before getting to the root of their problems then going about resolving that.... this required a lot of understanding, patience and on rare occasions empathy)
In my current role with a Games dev company, I am a Systems Engineer and Desktop Support Technician. I spend my days working through often difficult technical problems and coming up with acceptable solutions. This often means mediating between two parties especially when one department doesn't tell the other what they are planning before they ask us to do it.
2. Mediation:
I would like to think of myself as a mediator, patience is indeed a virtue and I like to think I have it. Nothing really else to say on this that I haven't said above.
3. Eloquence:
I think I have to agree with MEZZANINE largely on this one, clarity is often better than eloquence.
4. Prioritising:
Prioritising has been part of my daily life since I left school. In my current work I have to prioritise my tasks based on their impact to the business.
To be fair I think we all have prioritising skills playing this game and juggling our real lives can be the toughest.
5. Accepting adversity:
In my opinion we shouldn't be on any of our own quests but simply assisting in the mediation of the complaints of forum users.
There will always be cases where something doesn't work out the way we want it. A good ombudsman should be humble enough to accept defeat and should be good enough to prevent any bad feeling seeping into their work.
Universe wrote:I would like to hear the Candidates' thoughts on these few points. Consider it a 'test'.
Semper wrote:A little birdy informs me the purple man will be going for the role too.
Semper wrote:A little birdy informs me the purple man will be going for the role too.
purple
pretender?
Brdavs wrote:Semper wrote:A little birdy informs me the purple man will be going for the role too.
Who is thispurple
pretender?
![]()
You know, I just might... I got the biggest credential. I can`t stand the mods establishment and they can`t stand me.
Brdavs wrote:Gimme some time, I`ll grow "away from" you heh.
Universe wrote:1. Experience:
I think the Ombudsman should have no SGW moderator experience. Real life experience with solving situations far outweighs the 'experience' of being an SGW mod. Let's face it, what benefits does one who has 'moderator experience' have? Aside from having strong ties to the one institution the Ombudsman is required to have no ties to? None..
Real life experience in problemsolving is much more valuable as knowing when to delete what, who and when to warn or know the rules by heart so much that you can practically wake up (if you ever sleep) and recite them all.
We all agree, Real Life is far more important as the game or these boards. You do agree with that, do you not? Is it not natural that we look for one who has real life, hands on experience in actively resolving issues?
Of course, knowing the rules is important.. but do not make the mistake of seeing knowledge of the rules as 'experience'. Anyone with a peanut-sized brain can look up the rules thread, and anyone with a walnut-sized brain can look for precedents. So the most important experience one can have is having been a mediator of sorts in real life.
Universe wrote:Being able to mediate between people is important. What? It is the job description of the Ombudsman! To mediate, you should not be stuck to the rules as if they were a Sacred Book. Anyone who is absolute in their interpretation of the rules makes a lousy ombudsman, for the simple fact that if the rules were that straightforward and clear under all circumstances, there would be no need for an ombudsman.
Mediation requires an open mind to the problems of everyone.
Mediation requires patience.
Mediation requires effort, and the will to sit around the table into the late hours of night to solve an issue.
Patience. That means the ability to sit and wait while others talk, argue or fight. What the people need is not someone who antagonises people by their nature, or someone who is so very mellow you can knead them like cookie dough.
Patience.[b] Mediation. The two are that much intertwined, that by default, one who is prone to impatience doth not a mediator make. Do not make that mistake.
Universe wrote:In the most broad sense of the word, eloquence is the skill with which one strings words together to efficiently and effectively transfer their thoughts to others.
English. It's the language of these boards, and generally the language we all use. Whether we love it or not, the Ombudsman is in a position which requires nigh-[b]absolute clarity in their words. Imagine this, the Ombudsman presents an issue to the Administration and there is confusion about what the actual issue is, would that be conducive to a rapid resolution of issues? Key to swift resolution of issues presented by forum members or moderators is communication. Key to good communication is absolute command of the English language. Like it or not, this is the language in use on these boards. What we need is a near-native speaker of English, or someone who is hardly ever misunderstood. People with a history of being misunderstood, whether by their own fault or by the ignorance of their conversation partners is not a good choice as Ombudsman.
Universe wrote:As an Ombudsman, you will receive hundreds of complaints. Many of those will be relatively unimportant, but all of those complaints deserve an answer. Imagine someone comes at you, complaining about how the mood on the forums is angry. While this is not something you, as an Ombudsman, have anything to do with, it is someone's problem. Treat it as such. Answer it honestly and in good faith, even if you suspect the complaint is merely an attempt to waste your time. You do not have the luxury to neglect the complaints of individuals.
What you do have, is a responsibility to treat the most urgent issues with the most urgency. To properly do that, you will need to prioritise. Prioritising requires of you that you can estimate the impact an issue has on the general public, how disruptive it is, and the impact of the possible consequences. Generally, you should aim to address all complaints within a week from receiving them. 'Address' is used lightly, this means you should respond to complaints in any way; basically 'acknowledging receipt' is sufficient. 'Solving' the issues is another matter, you will not be the Messiah, Saviour, come to rescue us from our issues. You are a middleman. A filter, if you will. But most of all, you are part of all of us, staff and regulars alike.
Universe wrote:Do not needlessly continue on a quest to solve an issue. If you cannot accept an Administrative ruling, by all means, appeal it. But don't keep appealing if your case is a clear cut lost cause. Accept 'defeat', not all problems can be solved.
Understanding that you cannot always 'win' is another important quality in an Ombudsman. It is almost as important as realising that you are not 'the People's Advocate', but someone who negotiates. Your goal is not to have the complainer get compensation or a solution, your goal is to assess and address complaints and forward relevant cases to the Administration.
Tekki wrote:Not sure who all the current nominations are but one I did note I can't agree with - Semper.
He does not react well when challenged on the forum, and becomes rather short and tends to snap back at peoples. For an Ombudsman we need someone with patience, who doesn't take offence to being snapped at himself. And someone who can read what is there without reacting. I do not believe Semper can do this with some people.
This lack of impartiality is a major flaw I feel in his application for the position.
On the same note, I would commit to this role in the same way. I was brought up to not be bothered, but when I have a job to do, I do it to my full abilities without messing about.
Just to demonstrate my point.