TheKeep Ombudsmen - Discussion

[Familiar]

Congratulations, fellas.

[7:06]

I have a complaint.

My complaint is that there's no way to haze these guys. Isn't it traditional, before you welcome someone into a fraternity?

If one is possible, I think it should involve truffles.

[Moondog]

Normally we of the moderation staff have a hazing ritual involving currying favor with The Black Goat . Unfortunately, when it was my turn, I misinterpreted 'curry', and while we all ate rather well for a time, I'm afraid our ability to haze new recruits is rather hampered.

My bad.

[Xachariah]

Well, we've always got the White Goat.

[TheMadHatter]

Not a surprise that they're all from the lobby...

[H]

So because they're from the lobby, they will only favour lobby people?

[1337]

They seem right for the job. Regardless of what room the frequent.

[TheMadHatter]

So because they're from the lobby, they will only favour lobby people?

No. They are from the lobby, which is why they were picked to be Ombudsmen.

[Namie]

So because they're from the lobby, they will only favour lobby people?

No. They are from the lobby, which is why they were picked to be Ombudsmen.

man it's weird how people who know each other congregate in one area huh

[Kade]

They're all kind of yes men.

[Soja]

Not a surprise that they're all from the lobby...

If it makes you feel better, I did venture into the Arena_OOC last night shortly after the announcement, introduced myself, and asked those present not to hesitate to contact us if they had any questions or complaints.

And Kade, I take offense of your short-sighted slight. You don't know me, and I'd wager that you don't know my colleagues either.

[Kade]

There's always room to get to know someone even better than you know them currently, sure. I'm remaining open-minded, but feeling a little pessimistic.

But insofar, I don't recall any of these Ombudsmen ever taking a solid stance against the staff over any issue.
And unless I'm mistaken, two of you have pulled the "this is a dictatorship" / "this is not a democracy" card.

You know what they say about pessimism. An optimist is either right or wrong, but a pessimist is either right or delightfully surprised.
Here's to hoping I'm delightfully surprised, you three. Best of luck, and congratulations.

[TheMadHatter]

Well see that's the thing. We don't know you guys. It's not that I don't go into the lobby from time to time, because I do. It is because you guys are all very close to one another and stick to your group. Which is fine, we all hang out with our friends. Although, if the point of the Ombudsmen is to be someone on the outside looking in, so to speak, then it should be people that aren't extremely close with the moderating staff. So that it actually is a second opinion, rather that being bias and agreeing with your friends. The three people from the Ombudsmen should of been someone from the lobby, Mainhall, and a third room. Get people that are all over the keep who all have different outlooks on a particular situation.

[Familiar]

Not a surprise that they're all from the lobby...

If it makes you feel better, I did venture into the Arena_OOC last night shortly after the announcement, introduced myself, and asked those present not to hesitate to contact us if they had any questions or complaints.

And Kade, I take offense of your short-sighted slight. You don't know me, and I'd wager that you don't know my colleagues either.

Was pleased you came into the room last night, Lurkdoom, and you're welcome again anytime.

First order of business I did was exchange MSN/messenger info so can reach them outside tK/Lobby if need be and I encourage others to do the same. Ideally these guys I see rarely get distracted by RP because they're in the Lobby to talk it up, and Xach himself is very dedicated to the site as a whole, so you know they'll be around when needed.

The naysayers have their reasons, and should honestly push aside the indifference in hopes that with this new responsibility, the Ombudsmen have a better attitude and eagerness about helping people and bringing harmony to the community. Not everyone will be happy in this decision, but at least give them a chance before coming to a conclusion.

[Robo]

Y'know... Hatter did bring up a good point.
We need the anti-mod people keeping the mods in line.

Otherwise you're just giving users a shiny new name plate to make them feels special for no reason.

Now, whether what Hatter said is true, about all the people being in close with the Mods, I'm not sure, but the point still remains.

This group should consist of people from all over tK, from various users, not from a group of friends, as one of them (Lurkdom, I think. Too lazy to double-check) admitted, they're from the same group of friends.

[Familiar]

Anti-mod people having the authority to breathe down the necks of the mods they dislike will probably brew more hostility, and then nothing gets resolved. I'm not saying I expect the three to sugar coat issues since I don't know 'em too well, but I trust the neutrality enough on my end that they'll be honest with me. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, and can respect that coming from Ombudsmen who also respect me.

Also, it's only been like two days since they've been named Ombudsmen. Don't be so quick to declare this a failure if there hasn't even been an issue to bring up (like another debatable ban). Give it time and give them a chance - stop being so bitter just cause you or your friends didn't get picked.

[Robo]

I.. I'm not bitter or jealous? I'm a Global, the one these Obuwhatsits are gonne be "keeping in check".

I was merely under the impression that this system was being implemented in order to make sure the Mods do things right. This is not my point, but Hatter's, and I felt that it should be acknowledged at least some what. Nothing gets resolved either if the two parties are buddy-buddy and just go with whatever and flaunt ill-gotten "power" within tK.

And you're right, we can't judge it yet, as we haven't seen anything from them. I'm not here to judge or hate on the people who got the name.

I just felt that Hatter's point should be taken into consideration, becuz maybe - just maybe- Hatter is right, and the fact that these people all originate from the same social group will just cause the whole thing to be a waste of time.

One group of friends does not make up the whole of tK. Each rooms has different users, and different users have different views. If you want adequate representation for them, you need some one who is one of them.

But the name tags have been handed out already, and we have to see how it goes.

*Fixed

[1337]

Good points on both sides. -- We should see what happens before we get too far into this debate, no?

[H]

I trust these guys to tell people, even their friends, that they're wrong

[Auvic]

I don't honestly care too much one way or another about the ombudsmen ( the people I associate with are, for the most part, smart enough to not run afoul of rules, whether explicitly stated or not ) but someone else mentioned this in the other thread, I think, and I don't quite care enough to look it up. Here it is, paraphrased:

If you're picking Ombudsmen, they're pretty much going to fall into one of two groups:
1. People that have agreed (generally) with the decisions of the mods in the past.
2. People have have disagreed (generally) with the decisions of the mods in the past.

People in group 1, if picked to be ombudsmen, will be accused of being 'yes men', because the assumption is somehow made that managing to arrive at the same conclusion as other people must be due to the desire to agree with other people.
Calling them 'yes men' begs that question, because there's no way to prove they didn't get to that conclusion of their own accord, etc etc.
Point and counterpoint. This accusation can be made in similar fashion for people in group 2.

Hasn't really been long enough for them to fuck anything up or for people to start judging their ability to act impartially, imho.

@Robo: Ideally, sure. Pick users from all over tK, and try and average out ideological differences and whatever. But I'll venture a guess as to why that didn't happen: because users from 'all over tK' haven't proved themselves to be as mature/objective/unargumentative/whatever as the people that were chosen. Just a guess, though. I'm probably wrong.

[Kade]

stop being so bitter just cause you or your friends didn't get picked.

You have a very bad habit of dismissing criticism with not-so-subtle counterarguments of glorified, "lol ur  just mad because _________." It's been happening since day one of your trial modship. All jokes aside, you keep inflaming the disharmony you keep getting on that soapbox about, Fam.

I kind of agree with Auvic, too:
People who generally agree with Mods will be perceived as yes-men.
People who generally disagree with Mods will be perceived as "Anti-Mod" (Familiar)
People who never have an opinion, never speak up, or otherwise remain entirely neutral somehow will be perceived as pushovers, not decisive enough, randoms, or something along those lines.

So... the only way to really tell is to watch and see how these Ombudsmen perform. - Nods. -

[Namie]

stop being so bitter just cause you or your friends didn't get picked.

You have a very bad habit of dismissing criticism with not-so-subtle counterarguments of glorified, "lol ur  just mad because _________." It's been happening since day one of your trial modship. All jokes aside, you keep inflaming the disharmony you keep getting on that soapbox about, Fam.

that is kind of unprofessional, ngl

[Familiar]

My last statement wasn't directed about you being bitter, Robo, since I know you bear the responsibility of being a moderator. I apologize for that. But how does working with an anti-mod person help out? I'd see more bickering than resolution, and I'm not just out for a 'let's go with this cause it's the easiest/or I agree with you completely, fuck the rest of 'em' kind of people. I want them to be honest with me and I am willing to work with them about complaints, kicks, or bans that come up involving me.

There is a diverse community on tK, and every room likely has it's own drama, but the Lobby I've seen doesn't tolerate a lot of what other rooms put up, and there's been little interest besides like two other people about stepping up and taking on this responsibility. They're not mods, they are people who weigh in on issues that people deem are too 'mod discretion' in an attempt to bring, again, some harmony to this site. It's another layer of opinions and insights for the mods to see and come to a fair conclusion.

These three people really come across as someone wanting to help out, have great relations with the moderators (so there isn't any hostility - not just for the ass kissing or favouritism), and despite being in just a portion of the site they aren't deluded by the other crowds around tK. Again, we're making a big deal out of something that has barely got off the ground.

I trust Web's decision and trust these guys. There rarely, ever, should be an issue involving the Ombudsmen except bans, and how often are those handed out to some of the more outspoken users on the site?

[Kade]

The fact that you label people "Anti-Mod" at all is kind of bad.

[Familiar]

stop being so bitter just cause you or your friends didn't get picked.

You have a very bad habit of dismissing criticism with not-so-subtle counterarguments of glorified, "lol ur  just mad because _________." It's been happening since day one of your trial modship. All jokes aside, you keep inflaming the disharmony you keep getting on that soapbox about, Fam.

RATM, Kade. You were very eager to throw yourself into the pile to be considered as an Ombudsman and now against them because you or someone you deem professional enough for the input weren't selected. You deliberately aim to cause arguments and your attitude, along with another person in this thread, reflect that statement I made earlier.

Normally anti-mod people are just that. Anti-mod. Not sure how else you'd label them.