It's not beyond anyone's means--nobody said you should hire a professional ombudsman. If you're serious, though, we can go into it with more detail, but wouldn't it be easy enough to have a nominating thread, then a vote, the winner of which to be approved by the staff? It would be a non-paying gig, of course.
In my mind, to improve the perception of this site, a Celticsblog ombudsman would have be privy to the inner-workings of the site, such as the internal discussions regarding disciplinary measures, and could also be a mediary in disputes (though not the ultimate decider), and perhaps would be required to give state of blog reports every so often about his or her views...
How would that person be neutral? And why are they more neutral than the staff, or Jeff (who usually stays out of moderating decisions?)
Neutrality isn't at issue, Roy, as we've already agreed that some bias is inherent in any system of justice or process of adjudication.
An ombudsman would not have to be neutral so much as be respected by mods and members alike. Respected to the point that their words are trusted. Again, we're talking about a perception problem--one that could get resolved if a universally respected person was given access to the inner-workings at Celticsblog and given the forum to dispell or verify whatever 'perceptions' were being created via mod/member interaction.
I don't think there's a dichotomy between "staff" and "membership". I mean, all of the staffs are members, who post a lot and give their opinions, just like anybody else. Any member can become a member of the staff at any time, upon selection and acceptance. However, if there was such a dichotomy, how would choosing a ombudsman from the membership help this dichotomy? Wouldn't they simply be more sympathetic toward the membership, rather than the staff?
I think you're locked a little too tightly into your own perspective, Roy. There's a definite mod/member power dichotomy, one that colors every mod/member interaction on this board.
As far as what an ombudsman could do to help this board, I think he or she could remove some of the suspence regarding disciplinary measures, and possibly act in a positive manner towards addressing some of the favoritism claims. One of the common refrains I've heard so far from mods is that things look shady sometimes because disciplinary decisions are necessarily kept private, the assumption being that if members saw what the mods were really doing and the kinds of back and forth they engaged in over an issue, then they'd see that there was no favoritism at play. With a respected ombudsman privy to these discussions, perception regarding the true nature of such disciplinary measures would improve, IMO.
It makes no sense to me, but regardless, I don't really take the perception problem seriously. If people believe something that isn't true, even after all of the counter-examples, there's not much I or any other staff member can do to change it.
Again, what's truth have to do with anything? We're talking about perception, one that you don't share, nor take seriously (neither the substance of it, nor its prevelance amongst Celticsblog members). However, I'd suggest you're missing the point with your truth claims. Your counter-examples, all of them, are based on things you expect us to take on faith (as in, trust us, we really discuss these things and every decision is made collectively, so no one member has power), and then when a certain percentage of Celticsblog members question your faith-based assertions, you turn around and say that their opinions don't matter since you can't help it when people believe something that isn't true. Oh yeah? To me, it sounds like you only really care about the opinions of the people who believe what you say, and that the rest of the blog can go to hell.
My guess would be that a lot of the people sending out PMs are people who have been disciplined, or who have had their friends disciplined. It's pretty obvious where their anti-staff bias comes from, and the fact that they're intentionally reaching out to new members to "poison the well" says a lot about their motives and credibility.
Does it, really? It's pretty obvious? This is exactly what I'm talking about when I lament the fact that instead of taking someone's concerns at face value, the mod staff--for the most part--jumps right to questioning someone's motives. And you wonder why people would rather PM their concerns than post them in this thread! Isn't it obvious? They don't want their motive attacked for simply questioning what amounts to a faith-based assurance that everything is on the up-and-up around here, even when appearances might say otherwise.
I'd also add that mods don't really have "power". We can't do anything on our own without the consent and rewiew of the other mods. There is trust that we'll all be reasonable in our initial actions but we talk about everything.
And I'd like to add that we have to take this all on faith. In my experience, 'initial actions' carry the weight of conviction, unless there's a sympathetic mod in your corner to argue for you. As I see it, if you're in the out-crowd on this board and you cross a mod in the forums, and they find a questionable post that may or may not have broken the rules, they can easily discipline a member in basically a unilateral manner, knowing that there won't be any mods who would either bother to take the time to argue the other side, or who would even be able to make a case, since it's usually some ambiguous part of the rules which are allegedly broken.
Now, I really do think the mods do a fantastic job; however, I can easily see the instances where it appears they don't. Instead of asking every one to 'trust' that you're doing a great job, why not set up a process which removes some of the doubt and actually shows the quality of job regularly performed by mods? Wouldn't that be better than impugning the motive of everyone who doesn't agree with you?
Regarding the ombundsman, doesn't the whole election of an ombundsman then become a popularity contest based on likes and dislikes and not necessarily on qualifications? What happens if someone with a clear anti-mod agenda gets elected like one of the people sending out PMs to barefacedmonk? What good does that do anyone as the drama that would ensue regarding electing someone and the problems a person with a clear agenda would cause would be ridiculous.
Well, first of all, an ombudsman would have to be approved by the staff, since they would need the staff's respect to be able to do their duties and improve Celticsblog's perception problem. As such, someone with a clear anti-mod agenda would never become ombudsman.
Also, if someone with a clear agenda
were elected, wouldn't that say quite a lot about the actual state of affairs here on Celticblog? In fact, if such a person did get elected, it would be proof positive of the need for a respected ombudsman. This is not a problem.
The bottom line for me is that if you feel this sight is not treating you right, or not being "fair" or playing favorites, or whatever you can't stand (and you can't seem to resolve it to your own satisfaction) then just move on please! - quickly, quietly and without anger. All people don't fit in all places.
This is site about the Boston Celtics and at the end of the day it should be fun and if it isn't fun then please just call it a day and go.
Po, I enjoy your posts immensely, but I think you (and the others who have posted similar thoughts) miss the point. We know that we can leave anytime and we know that whatever happens on Celticsblog is not important AT ALL in the grand scheme of things. We don't need to be reminded--it's a given.
But the question still remains: what should those members do about things they'd like to see improved on this site? This thread, if taken in good faith, is an open discussion on rules/restrictions and a "you-can-leave-if-you-don't-like-it" lament doesn't jive with those intentions, even if it's true and wise.
I only brought up this issue because I'd seen it minimized and explained away previously as the biased rantings of an angry minority. To me, it's more than that--I think there's a real feeling out in the membership that questions the way things are enforced and that feeling has, over the years, led to ugly drama whereby good, solid, thought-provoking members have been made to leave, either by their choice or not. With every defection, the community loses; as such, this perception problem should be eliminated, if possible, in attempt to help the community grow in richness. To me, the only way to eliminate this problem is to introduce an omdudsman to bridge the gap between mod/member relations.
So, yeah, I can leave anytime I want, but so can everyone else. What I'm really concerned about is making people want to stay.
Topic: Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions (Read 456792 times)