StarGateWars Forums

Nimras, stop stealing my damn bandwidth!
Get your own sodding space!
Seriously dude get rid!

Clarkey wrote:Nimras, stop stealing my damn bandwidth!
Get your own sodding space!
Seriously dude get rid!

Amen

deni wrote:

Clarkey wrote:Nimras, stop stealing my damn bandwidth!
Get your own sodding space!
Seriously dude get rid!

Amen

It was for the last picture in my SIG so lol

Clarkey wrote:Nimras, stop stealing my damn bandwidth!
Get your own sodding space!
Seriously dude get rid!

No worries will do hehe just didn't have time to move it to my own server will do it when i get home m8 no worries.

Nimras wrote:Mordack = FUALL

Guess again.

Nimras wrote:Mordack = FUALL proven when he was GM that he allowed mods and other GM to overrule him in his own area and do as they pleased hmm.

Can you tell me when and where this happened, Nimras?

I cannot recall ever having been 'overruled' in general. I was inactive for a few weeks, during which time Jack and Deni were unfortunately left to pick up the slack. We didn't have any disagreements over policy, though. Indeed, I cannot recall a time when I have ever been in open conflict with another moderator over a decision made in general.

To date, Nimras, you are one of only two people to accuse me of being bias. The other one, ironically enough, was a DDE member who thought I was favouring the TA. I honestly think my record speaks for itself.

And no, I'm not in FUALL at the moment. Anybody who knows anything about that will also know how ludicrious accusations of bias on their behalf will sound. That discussion isn't for this thread, though.

Thanks for the good luck wish.

Mormegil wrote:

Nimras wrote:Mordack = FUALL

Guess again.

can i quote something from a different forum here ?
no wait i'm not a 2 faced backstabber ^^

days left for me in this dreadfull place : 1

manetheren come back so i can leave

jack hates the ombudsman office the most becausse he's constantly there, jack should get his own lawyer to handle the complaints made on him for him, now that would improve the forum


discuss it all you want but in the end:

- a forum needs an ombudsman
- ombudsman job description is made by admin jason not the forum admins
- mods will not like the ombudsman as long as investigating complaints made by users is one of it's primary roles
- ppl will always keep calling ppl biased and shoving them into sides regardless of what they do
- and the ppl you are debating with now will not change their opinions becausse they are speaking from their hearts, as long as the ppl don't change the opinions won't change

this debate about the ombudsman is pointless, i just wanted to say goodbye and speak my mind and explain why i was leaving.

peace out ppl !


sugestion for moderators: move this to debate central and call it : the never anding debate about the ombudsman

or move it to the GC and call it: talk wars , the ombudsman saga: pro's vs con's

Wepwaet wrote:I've looked for Forum's latest clarification of the role but am unable to find it. Can it be posted here so everyone can start from the same base line whether they are a mod or regular user.

Thanks,
Wep

In the Oms/Admin section where the original question was asked by mantheran

Manetheren wrote:If Zeek or I determine a warning is unjust, is that the final say or can we be overruled?

Following this question is the rift that has started all this. There was a split in the admins interpritation of jason meaning for the role of the position, one admin says the Oms can overturn /over rule admin decisions while the other two said Oms makes recomendations to the admin team using an outsiders veiw, but that admins still made to decision. This lead to Jason himself being asked to clarify, his reply to the admins and Oms.

Forum wrote:going back to the role descriptions, I will clarify my intent (and reword the descriptions to be more clear) of the ombudsman.

They are there to REPRESENT the users.
They can go directly to the Forum Admin team with issues, for individuals or groups of individuals, or specific issues or larger scale issues. (ie bad rule/bad mod decisions/unfair ban/ban that should have been but was not, etc etc).

It is up to the admin team, though, to make a decision based on the facts/reports of the Ombudsman. The Ombudsman does not make a decision, just a recommendation. Like always, the 2/3 majority in the current admin team should be used when it would normally -the Ombudsman does not add a 'vote' in any way. Think of it like an Ombudsman being a lawyer (or class action lawyer) and the 3 Forum Admins the 'grand court' who collectively makes the final call.....

So - in short- whether an issue is brought by mods, ombudsman, me, or any other means --once in the hands of the forum admin team, the process remains the same.....the 'how' it got to them does not alter their procedure...

I hope that answers your question Wep.

Thank you Lore, that's exactly what I was looking for.

It seems there are 2 issues buried in this argument:
1) Historically the position has grown and evolved. Before the last election the position was retooled to deal only with complaints

Robe wrote:The Ombudsman
Purpose
The Ombudsman has an extremely important role. Chosen by the Forum Community to represent their best interest, the Ombudsman is required to provide unbiased opinion and fair judgments
on matters of conflict between Forum Users and the Moderators.

Authority
The Ombudsman, supported by Forum Admins, is granted the powers to fully investigate any relevant issues in a complaint.
...
Buck, Lore and Robe
Issued 25 Feb 08

This is further backed by Forum's own words

Forum wrote:going back to the role descriptions, I will clarify my intent (and reword the descriptions to be more clear) of the ombudsman.

They are there to REPRESENT the users.
They can go directly to the Forum Admin team with issues, for individuals or groups of individuals, or specific issues or larger scale issues. (ie bad rule/bad mod decisions/unfair ban/ban that should have been but was not, etc etc)...Think of it like an Ombudsman being a lawyer (or class action lawyer) and the 3 Forum Admins the 'grand court' who collectively makes the final call.....

The issue is thus, should the position also include the purpose's it evolved through previous incarnations or should it be left in its current state purpose wise.




2) There seems to be issue with the authority of the position and how it fits into the larger forum hierarchy.

Lore wrote:

Manetheren wrote:If Zeek or I determine a warning is unjust, is that the final say or can we be overruled?

Following this question is the rift that has started all this. There was a split in the admins interpretation of jason meaning for the role of the position, one admin says the Oms can overturn /over rule admin decisions while the other two said Oms makes recommendations to the admin team using an outsiders veiw but that admins still made to decision. This lead to Jason himself being asked to clarify, his reply to the admins and Oms.

The issue is thus, should the position be that of "lawyer's (i.e. secretaries with a fancy title as some people have said) or should it be more like a court of appeals with a supreme court (the admins) above them. Depending on how this is decided the location within the larger forum hierarchy should be self evident.





My personal views on the subject are that the position should include some of the previous duties such as facilitating requests for being un-permabanned. I see the position as that of a court of appeals. If I feel that I was wrongly warned or have an issue with a mod in general then I can go to this appeals court for either mediation or to appeal a warning. If I still feel unsatisfied I can always request my case put forth to the admins (Supreme Court) who can easily review both the facts gathered by the Ombudsmen, their "ruling", and a statement by the person making the request and come to a final decision on the subject. In this way the issues the admins have to deal with are reduced and regular users are given more than enough opportunity to be heard and work through grievances. Of course admins have the right and prerogative to over-rule the Ombudsmen if they feel that there is a need to step in without being asked.

I'll dig through Jack's posts later to find the purposes that have been pushed aside when the position was retooled and put them in list format. If you'd like to do that before me Jack that would be great considering you are much much more familiar with the material than myself.



Wep

Well I dont think the position has been "retooled" or anything like that, atleast not intentionally. I think its just the different styles of people coupled with the oppurtunities the Oms themselves are given.

If people don't use them, its not the Oms fault. How can they act as the voice of the masses if the masses never talk to them? How can they do anything else but be a mod complaint department, if thats all the users us them for?

This is just my opinion.

If you ask me, it's simple, complicated, and incredibly stupid.

Yes, the ombudsman position changed over the years (as Jack pointed out, varying between ombudsman and admins).
Ombudsman were led to believe (by default, as they were told they had complete investigative powers, no one contradicted that) their function entailed more as it did, that their authority was larger as it was. At the time they spoke openly about this, there was an uproar and mods, GMs and some admins felt the Ombudsman overstepped their boundaries.
Jason was asked (in private) to clarify the ombudsman position, or to officially curtail the ombudsman to what power they have (and were meant to have), without going through the entire procedure of consulting all forum admins before going to Jason. This created a schism, and can be said to be the point where the perspectives diverge beyond mending; to some, the admin who consulted Jason was 'lobbying' him to disempower the ombudsman (by taking decisionmaking out of their job description, which until that time was not specified to that extent). To others, it was simply a matter of clarification.
Since some people cannot be bothered/are afraid to/structurally are too busy to talk with each other, this led to another witch hunt this forum/staff is famous for. The refusal of one party to communicate and of the other party to consider another perspective leaves the third party dead smack in the middle of it.

So, to fix this, I suggest the following:
1. Ombudsman position needs a FINAL clarification. This clarification will COMPLETELY redefine ombudsman, from scratch. This clarification will be fully disclosed upon admin agreement.
2. Ombudsman position, if ever changed, needs FULL public disclosure of said changes.
3. Ombudsman rotating system needs to be brought back to 3 months shifts. Having a few good guys do the job is no reason to change that in the first place. When redefining the ombudsman, do take into account that you do NOT want to have someone sit in office for more as the time you give them.
4. Admin need to *seriously* consider taking a few lessons in cooperation.. take a minute to ignore all those voices that lead you into chaos, TALK to each other and get things back on track.

I had a long talk with Zeek last night about the future of the ombudsman, and he gave me a lot of helpful suggestions. I'm currently in the process of looking over our MSN logs and hopefully formulating some kind of draft proposal which I'll send to the over two admin.

I suggest something new.. something to do what the community originally intended the Ombudsman to do.

The Forum Inquisition. XD.

Shotgun High inquisitor.

nobody expects the.... oh darn!

~soul