BenjaminMS wrote:The power it originally was meant to be by both Admin Jason and Robe: not reporting to the admins, but being able to overturn without needing to ask the admins.
Without pointing out the Robe thing which others have done, I have 2 things to say to this. 1) "not reporting to the admins" - I think you fail to understand the role of Ombudsman because the Oms does
not report to the Admins. In a case that is brought to them the Oms if necessary will consult with Admins and will provide the Admins with their recommendation paper. No reporting to Admins there. 2) "being able to overturn without needing to ask the admins" - again the Oms doesn't currently ask the Admins to overturn squat. You all scream bias against admins and mods, but hey if the Oms can overturn a warning themselves then that's all hunky-dory is it???
renegadze wrote:So who overturns bad admin decisions?
](./images/smilies/eusa_wall.gif "Brick wall")
What sort of bad admin decisions? Do you mean if an Admin has issued a user a warning? Well if you actually took a second to understand the processes on this forum you wouldn't need to ask that question. But lets lay it out for you....
1) The user should at least attempt to contact the admin that issued the warning to see if there is a resolution, this gives the user their opportunity to maybe explain something. The admin in that case could decide to overturn the warning if they felt it wasn't warranted after being given an explanation.
2) The user can go to the Ombudsman to put a case forward about their warning and then once the recommendation paper is handed to the Admins then there are at least 2 other admins (+1 if counting Bazsy) like Deni said, there's a reason for multiple admins.
You have 3 very different minded (in a good way) Admins which helps provide solid judgments on cases of warnings. If you are unsuccessful in getting a warning overturned then you will be a person that either accepts it (and understands why) or you will automatically claim you have been wronged.
I am speaking from experience here. It's no secret that I have fought Admins strong and hard. But too many people will only look at problems from one point of view and that is their own point of view. Unless they get the end result they want then everyone else (i.e. Admins etc) is wrong.
You say that the Oms should have more power such as making the final decision to overturn warnings. What happens then if the Oms decides not to overturn a warning? The user is still likely to complain, more likely to go to the Admins to complain, can easily accuse the oms of being biased etc. What happens then if a warning is overturned but another user had their overturning in the past denied for the exact same thing.... again complaints to the admins and bias claims.
You don't think this through properly. You can't just imply the Oms needs more power by saying it's a powerless position. You are living in a fantasy world. You want things to be perfect, but it will never be perfect, just like real life will never be perfect. No matter what the process is for resolving warnings there will always be bad things about it.
). Like Deni said, there's more than one admin for a reason and bad decisions like that can easily be overturned with a vote from the non-involved parties. 
The only time Jason needs to be contacted is when something of actual consequence happens, like half the forum is deleted or the game asplodes. Or for phone secks.
