Our BetterMost Community > The Polling Place

Ombudsman for BetterMost Poll

<< < (5/8) > >>

jstephens9:
I never felt comfortable on Dave Cullen. It seems to have so many rules and regulations. I always felt that anything I said would be analyzed and analyzed. I never want to see that happen here so if having things such as Ombudsmans would lead to that I say "no." I also don't want anyone to get the idea that I have anything against DC. I have many friends there who are great people. Some of them are even moderators. I guess the DC style is just different and I prefer a more relaxed atmosphere.

brokebackjack:

--- Quote from: jstephens9 on January 20, 2008, 01:38:05 pm ---I never felt comfortable on Dave Cullen. It seems to have so many rules and regulations. I always felt that anything I said would be analyzed and analyzed. I never want to see that happen here so if having things such as Ombudsmans would lead to that I say "no." I also don't want anyone to get the idea that I have anything against DC. I have many friends there who are great people. Some of them are even moderators. I guess the DC style is just different and I prefer a more relaxed atmosphere.

--- End quote ---
ditto---if an ombudsman position might cause this, to hell with it.

At the same time...I can't help thinking after careful consideration we try it. It can always be abolished swiftly if it seems to be negative. BM isn't like Congress or Parliament, where you need to take 1100 motions to do anything. If it's no good, Phillip should have the right to just say so and get rid of it. He's nobodies fool. And we all trust him

Wishes:
As someone who can be overly sensitive, I voted "yes" However I'm not completely clear how an Ombudsman would be different than a Moderator.

Also, I'm kind of wondering who the heck would want the position. I think moderating must be hard and time consuming enough.

Just a couple of thoughts.

underdown:
Well, I voted no.

It would be great if it would work, but, apart from complaints about administrative matters, moderators and obvious personal attacks, it is hard to see how one person could possibly carry out such a responsibility and judge such a large and diverse group of people, determine who was over-reacting to something they see as wrong, who was simply better at pushing their case, or who was not as proficient with the english language ... and still be SEEN to be impartial.
Ditto 3 or more judges. If one of them disagreed with the other two, that would indicate that the judgement is suspect.

Judgements could only be trusted if they were perfectly correct. If they were sometimes based on seemingly logical, but incorrect, assumptions, someone will be unfairly treated, and then the whole exercise would be pointless.

How would an ombudsman collect the 'evidence' and determine if a complaint is 'substantiated' ? This is a community in cyberspace, where nothing is evident, and nothing is substantial, where anyone can sound genuinely agrieved, and anyone else can make incorrect assumptions based upon that.

Certainly, there a some very nice BetterMostians who would be an excellent choice, but who, because they are nice, might be the least likely to nominate for the job. And then we could end up with someone who just likes judging.

OMO, but the only useful role for an ombudsman would seem to be as a confidential 'ear' and arbitrator of matters already raised with administrators and moderators, and even then it would be a very difficult task.
 

Wishes:
Actually with as many people as there are posting on this board, it really is amazing how little bickering there is and how well people get along. There are more snipes that go on where I work.

I'm wondering if there was a dispute, having a thread dedicated to that. Maybe a section of the board. Dumb idea?  ???

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page