StarGateWars Forums

bill, i agree that you had an across the board vote, and no offense intended. But, u will agree that since this started, there have been clear cases of groups trying to control the out come. Special Interest groups are not left only to Scooter Libby and GB.

papa~smurf wrote:bill, i agree that you had an across the board vote, and no offense intended. But, u will agree that since this started, there have been clear cases of groups trying to control the out come. Special Interest groups are not left only to Scooter Libby and GB.

You are correct, there are always groups. But, that's true with anything political. If you didn't want them elected, have them chosen by admin.


Since it is an election however, you will always have "parties".


At this point, looking at things. I'd like to think myself as the independent party. Whom else has such diversity in their support.


Which i might add, has always been the case.

Please stop ....


The job of Ombudsman is to be impartial and speak as a advocate for the community as individuals when a issue arises.

It is unfortunate that at this point any of the nominees that we have to choose from will be held in contempt by the overwhelming influence of the super powers that have put them in the spotlight by virtue of the influence to nominate them and now due to the same influence have negated the voting process. Why would the community or any individual have any reason to believe that the newly elected Ombudsman wouldn't be bias. Im not saying that any of the 3 nominated are or would be bias in any way but that the community will cry bias all day long.

Good luck to the New Ombudsman whoever you may be you have a long haul ahead of you regardless of which Empire you belong to or are at odds with either way it will be an uphill battle from the start.

MajorLeeHurts wrote:Please stop ....


The job of Ombudsman is to be impartial and speak as a advocate for the community as individuals when a issue arises.

It is unfortunate that at this point any of the nominees that we have to choose from will be held in contempt by the overwhelming influence of the super powers that have put them in the spotlight by virtue of the influence to nominate them and now due to the same influence have negated the voting process. Why would the community or any individual have any reason to believe that the newly elected Ombudsman wouldn't be bias. Im not saying that any of the 3 nominated are or would be bias in any way but that the community will cry bias all day long.

Good luck to the New Ombudsman whoever you may be you have a long haul ahead of you regardless of which Empire you belong to or are at odds with either way it will be an uphill battle from the start.

The voting process has not been negated, just delayed until the best method is decided.

I'm sorry , but all i see here is ppl making a mounten out of a molehill , who ever gets elected wil have to win the harts of the ppl , if to many complaints of bad jugment are made i'm shure somthing wil be done about it , so lets all wait and see who wins and how that person grips the horns.

Now , back on topic pls , this tread was made to find out WAT YOU EXPECT from your OM , not who you want.

edit , dbbl post , i wil past it here

MEZZANINE wrote:..., as much as I respect the other nominees, they are in empires that span several alliances and hundreds of players, and if they avoided ruling on decisions that involved their empires, there would be very few disputes they could rule on.

Thats cos you think it is impossible for a member of an alliance to make a jugment and not be influenced by his alliance.

As pointed out befor , it is not ingame member X against ingame member y its forum user against a MOD dicision , but most of you ppl dont seem to understand this , there are actually ppl out there that can be neutral , they dont feel the need to smother other forum members , they actually want to help the forum and its users.

And pls if you want to continiu this discusion start a new tread with matching titel , this is the " Definition of the ombbus(wo)man job " topic.

Really.. I use to follow this general definition:

An ombudsman (English plural: ombudsmans or ombudsmen) is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. In some jurisdictions, the Ombudsman is referred to, at least officially, as the 'Parliamentary Commissioner' (e.g., the West Australian state Ombudsman). The word ombudsman and its specific meaning, Norse in origin, has since been adopted into English as well as other languages, and ombudsmen have been instituted by other governments and organizations such as the European Union.

So, you see why I dislike elections for the function - underlined. In my opinion, the best person to select the next ombudsman is the previous one. That not being the issue to be discussed here (thanks Draleg), I'll not delve into that.

As for the tasks - bolded and italicised - of the ombudsman.. I think it's quite clear.
All an ombudsman has to do is find out what reasons there are for a person to be banned/warned, posts to be deleted, etcetera, IF (and only if) the administration/moderators fail to clarify why they took said action.
Basically, those 2 things; posts edited/deleted and user warned/banned, are the only actual complaints users can have about the staff. Accusations of bias and other subjective (user-perceived) incidents are harder, but can be resolved through minor investigative work - basically asking the offended/suspicious party what they notice, and the accused party what they meant or how they came to their conclusions. Basically, one might say asking questions is the sole job of the ombudsman.
Anything beyond that is crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Ombudsmen are always subject to the Administration.. might I remind everyone to the fact that the task of the Ombudsmen is to negotiate between Moderators and Community.. Administration being a completely different level is in fact impossible (and should not be wanted) to 'control' (control not being the exact word.. but I fail to find the proper word; perhaps it is 'be accountable to someone'?).


All that said, I think the whole issue of "That person represents that group!" is idiotic and childish. If you are susceptible to such accusations, you fail to be even close to the position of trust an ombudsman requires.
Of course, ombudsmen can grow into such trust positions.. by fairly representing every complaint they find they can address. If the community has a general complaint about many mods at once, the ombudsman has the responsibility to publically address the issue, but only after conducting conversations with community leaders, moderators and of course the Administration.
It's simply not possible for an ombudsman to NOT represent a user in a good and fairly presented case, as such is their job. The issues need ALL be posted in public.. so that that public can judge the ombudsman and see that he does deserve their trust.
Of course, the Administration is in the position to overrule an ombudsman at any given time. To deal with a case involving the Administration, an ombudsman would require Site Admin endorsement. I seem to recall that didn't happen, but if it were to, it would be the only option to give an ombudsman the authority to converse with the Administration at an equal level.

And with that we've reached the pinnacle of ombudsmanship.. equality. An ombudsman is level with the Community, but also with the Moderators. We all know Moderators are members of the Community with a certain extra responsibility and the power to properly account for that responsibility. Administrators on the other hand are NOT just members of this Community.. hence my little expedition into requiring the Site Admin to agree.

I guess those are my thoughts, Draleg.

I think you underestimate the longlasting and burning issue at the core here...
It`s not about faint in an induviduals "integrity" (or the existance of it). It`s about perception and labels a tag will naturally and immediatly induce, especially in the midst of a server wide war heh.
With all the contreversy these forums have been through on account of bias (justified or not), from top to bottom possitions, and all these years of repeated discussions about it trivialising this "issue" seems rather naive, doesn`t it?

But hey, I`m glad you have this "faith". The only problem is that 90% of people won`t have it when you get down and dirty/to work and instead of OM being a facilitator of solutions it will be the facilitator of disputes heh. You might not care you might not think/hope it matters but it will lol. Allways has and allways will.
Mountain out of a molehill perhaps, yet a somewhat well educated guess based on past experience.





Edit: RL comparisons are a bit of a mute point. Not only do definitions&legal position varie from state to state so does the succes of the office. Succes which is based on the public fait/trust in the office/induvidual. Much like here. And SGW has never been big on "trust" lol.

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:Really.. I use to follow this general definition:

An ombudsman (English plural: ombudsmans or ombudsmen) is an official, usually (but not always) appointed by the government or by parliament, who is charged with representing the interests of the public by investigating and addressing complaints reported by individual citizens. In some jurisdictions, the Ombudsman is referred to, at least officially, as the 'Parliamentary Commissioner' (e.g., the West Australian state Ombudsman). The word ombudsman and its specific meaning, Norse in origin, has since been adopted into English as well as other languages, and ombudsmen have been instituted by other governments and organizations such as the European Union.

So, you see why I dislike elections for the function - underlined. In my opinion, the best person to select the next ombudsman is the previous one. That not being the issue to be discussed here (thanks Draleg), I'll not delve into that.

As for the tasks - bolded and italicised - of the ombudsman.. I think it's quite clear.
All an ombudsman has to do is find out what reasons there are for a person to be banned/warned, posts to be deleted, etcetera, IF (and only if) the administration/moderators fail to clarify why they took said action.
Basically, those 2 things; posts edited/deleted and user warned/banned, are the only actual complaints users can have about the staff. Accusations of bias and other subjective (user-perceived) incidents are harder, but can be resolved through minor investigative work - basically asking the offended/suspicious party what they notice, and the accused party what they meant or how they came to their conclusions. Basically, one might say asking questions is the sole job of the ombudsman.
Anything beyond that is crossing lines that shouldn't be crossed.

Ombudsmen are always subject to the Administration.. might I remind everyone to the fact that the task of the Ombudsmen is to negotiate between Moderators and Community.. Administration being a completely different level is in fact impossible (and should not be wanted) to 'control' (control not being the exact word.. but I fail to find the proper word; perhaps it is 'be accountable to someone'?).


All that said, I think the whole issue of "That person represents that group!" is idiotic and childish. If you are susceptible to such accusations, you fail to be even close to the position of trust an ombudsman requires.
Of course, ombudsmen can grow into such trust positions.. by fairly representing every complaint they find they can address. If the community has a general complaint about many mods at once, the ombudsman has the responsibility to publically address the issue, but only after conducting conversations with community leaders, moderators and of course the Administration.
It's simply not possible for an ombudsman to NOT represent a user in a good and fairly presented case, as such is their job. The issues need ALL be posted in public.. so that that public can judge the ombudsman and see that he does deserve their trust.
Of course, the Administration is in the position to overrule an ombudsman at any given time. To deal with a case involving the Administration, an ombudsman would require Site Admin endorsement. I seem to recall that didn't happen, but if it were to, it would be the only option to give an ombudsman the authority to converse with the Administration at an equal level.

And with that we've reached the pinnacle of ombudsmanship.. equality. An ombudsman is level with the Community, but also with the Moderators. We all know Moderators are members of the Community with a certain extra responsibility and the power to properly account for that responsibility. Administrators on the other hand are NOT just members of this Community.. hence my little expedition into requiring the Site Admin to agree.

I guess those are my thoughts, Draleg.

n the United States the U.S. Congressman has long performed the unofficial function of an Ombudsman, at the Federal level. This informal job has become increasingly time consuming. It is subject to criticism on the grounds that it interferes with a legislator's primary duty, namely to read and be knowledgeable about a bill before casting his or her vote.[2]

Nonetheless, as Morris Fiorina points out, the involvement of Congress in the ombudsman process carries one major advantage: members of the Legislative Branch exercise "control over what bureaucrats value most – higher budgets and new program authorizations."[3]





btw...congress if you didn't know....is elected.

I know that, but fail to see the relevance to this issue.. you're reverting the discussion to "How to find a New Ombudsman", which we clearly stipulated not to be the issue here..
Please address the 'job' itself as well.

Thats cos you think it is impossible for a member of an alliance to make a jugment and not be influenced by his alliance.

As MajorLee said, it's not that you or any of the nominees would be bias, just that their will always be accusations and claims of bias if you rule in favor of your empire, even if the ruling is fully justified.

As pointed out befor , it is not ingame member X against ingame member y its forum user against a MOD dicision , but most of you ppl dont seem to understand this , there are actually ppl out there that can be neutral , they dont feel the need to smother other forum members , they actually want to help the forum and its users.

I totally agree, I quote my own definition from a few pages back.

Definition of Forum Ombudsman -

An objective unbiased party who can rule on disputes when Players challenge the actions / words of Mods or if Mods are divided on an issue. The Forum Ombudsman will not rule on disputes between Players/Alliances/Empire, thats what GC and Vendetta Corner is for. Since an Ombudsman has no real authority, their ruling is enforced purely by the backing of the mods and community that entrusted them with the position.

With MajorLee out of the running I step out of this convo as I dont know any of the other nominees personally, all have good reps and I wish the winner best of luck

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:I know that, but fail to see the relevance to this issue.. you're reverting the discussion to "How to find a New Ombudsman", which we clearly stipulated not to be the issue here..
Please address the 'job' itself as well.

To be fair, I didn't read the whole post...ADD.



Anyways.

I think the ombudsman should be able to override the mods in the event that the ombudsman thinks it's a bad call or a biased call.

If the mod disagree's, he should be able to approach the forum admin with his complaints. I like to think of the ombudsman being the overriding vote between two parties. He may side with the player, but he may also side with the mod...So make sure you are right before asking, lest you not like the result.


Basically, whomever is acting more the adult will more then likely be right anyways.



It all depends on the circumstances. But I think of him as the "anti-mod". He can't mod....but he can over ride the mods if they are over-reacting...which happens....or if they are wrong....which happens, we are all human.


Bill

Well I have tried to stay away from all the bs that has gone with trying to get an ombudsman nominated/voted on.

I do believe there will never be a neutral party to solve every issue at hand the ombudsman comes to face.

Its also been mentioned that it would be good to get someone not playing the game some joe would be good. But I doubt there would be such a person who would be up to the task or the forums community would want such person.

Next everyone is human and yes this person will see hind site vision is always 20/20 .

I think we all know what an ombusdman role should be there shouldn't be any question now. But finding the person and chosing said person will again be difficult task if elections are held your starting out bias anyways. Its an I like you the most vote basically. And so would the choosing a sucessor for the previous ombudsman.

Humans are funny

I see where you're coming from.

Pianomutt20000 wrote:I think the ombudsman should be able to override the mods in the event that the ombudsman thinks it's a bad call or a biased call.

I beg to differ.. overriding is something that shouldn't be part of an OM's tasks.
The OM is never the deciding factor, he merely presents his findings to the Administration, which will then take actions against either mod or user.

I think we differ on the part of executive powers be granted to the OM.


@Kill: Oh, that did make sense. I think you have a few good points right there. On another note, I gather the following from your words "This discussion is pointless, we all know what Ombuds do". (do correct me if I'm wrong!)
If that were the case, no one would be asking the question "What does an OM do?", which seems to be the case.. so I guess it's not as clear as you and I think. (Because I agree, OM's tasks are pretty straightforward, I think.)

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:I see where you're coming from.

Pianomutt20000 wrote:I think the ombudsman should be able to override the mods in the event that the ombudsman thinks it's a bad call or a biased call.

I beg to differ.. overriding is something that shouldn't be part of an OM's tasks.
The OM is never the deciding factor, he merely presents his findings to the Administration, which will then take actions against either mod or user.

I think we differ on the part of executive powers be granted to the OM.


@Kill: Oh, that did make sense. I think you have a few good points right there. On another note, I gather the following from your words "This discussion is pointless, we all know what Ombuds do". (do correct me if I'm wrong!)
If that were the case, no one would be asking the question "What does an OM do?", which seems to be the case.. so I guess it's not as clear as you and I think. (Because I agree, OM's tasks are pretty straightforward, I think.)

If the ombudsman cannot settle disputes....and override either player of mod depending on who's right....then the position is useless.


Admin isn't on 24 hours a day, and if someone is banned and it comes out that the banning was wrong......it shouldn't have to wait half a day.


Mind you, I believe that the ombudsman should file a report to admin after such an action is taken...for review though, not permission.


Bill