Refining the ombudsman role

[Octavia]

Okay, this is RBH's last draft. Have started new thread - as Worldtraveller suggested - as the old one was hopelessly muddled. Opinions, please.

The Role of Ombudsman

The role of Ombudsman at Talk Rational! is to provide assistance in resolving disputes between staff and posters or among staff in circumstances where normal conflict resolution has not worked.

The Ombudsman is concerned with the process by which staff decisions are made about matters in the Staff Phorum and in Active Reports. The Ombudsman has access to both forums at need, but does not participate in discussions -- the Ombudsman is not part of "staff" and has access only in an observer role except as noted below.

The focus of the Ombudsman is on process. That is, the Ombudsman's task is to ensure that staff have followed procedures that are fair to users and other staff and that are consistent with the Moderator Guidelines. The Ombudsman does not re-make staff decisions or second guess the substance of decisions.

The Ombudsman is not an advocate for one or the other side in a dispute. The Ombudsman gathers information, encourages discussion, and in an instance where necessary, initiates public discussion of a contentious issue.

The Ombudsman's first duty is to review the appropriate materials in the Staff Phorum, to which he or she is given read-only access. Then, if the Ombudsman deems it appropriate, in a sub-forum open to staff, the Ombudsman, and the complainant, the Ombudsman initiates a discussion of the procedural issues associated with the event. Staff, Ombudsman, and the complainant participate in that discussion.

If the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the complaint is appropriately resolved in that private forum, then a thread in Town Hall may be initiated to discuss the matter. Again, only staff, the Ombudsman, and the complainant post in that thread, though a tightly moderated peanut gallery thread may be started.

Selection Procedure

The position of Ombudsman is a temporary one, with an Ombudsman chosen for each instance requiring mediation. The Ombudsman for a given complaint/instance is selected in a multi-stage process.

First, the affected member posts a request for an Ombudsman to mediate a matter in Town Hall. Other members of TR post in that thread only to register agreement; if within 48 hours 2.5% of the current active membership or 20 members, whichever is larger, concur with the request, then the process proceeds to nominating candidates.

Second, candidates are offered. Anyone except the complainant and current staff may be nominated, and self-nominations are appropriate. The Administrators by a majority vote may veto any nominations from trolls or those known to have relevant axes to grind. Nominations are open for 48 hours.

Third, the Ombudsman is elected in the following manner. The names of the candidates are listed in a multi-choice poll. We emphasise that people should vote for all candidates they approve of rather than just voting for their favourite candidate. Voting is open for 48 hours. The candidate with the most votes is the Ombudsman for that instance, and remains until the situation is resolved.

The ombuddy role seems to be panning out as a check on a particular problem, brought up by any member. Given that this forum is open for policy discussion, and votes will be public, it might be best if we go for the "individual ombuddy for individual problem" approach - it had a tiny margin of favour over standing pool and permanent guard.

This isn't the voting yet, but it's the last ditch discussion before vote - so if you have any concerns, please feel free to put them forward!

[umop apisdn w,I]

I think that the strength of the "permanent guard" option was that it provided transparency. Given that we now have this forum, I agree that the temporarily-elected type is the way to go.

The only potential pitfall I see with this draft is that it places the Ombudsman in a position of ensuring that correct procedure was followed whereas our general statement of purpose emphasises that slavishly following procedure should always take second place to acting in the overall interest of the board and community.

So I'd prefer to see this...

The focus of the Ombudsman is on process. That is, the Ombudsman's task is to ensure that staff have followed procedures that are fair to users and other staff and that are consistent with the Moderator Guidelines. The Ombudsman does not re-make staff decisions or second guess the substance of decisions.

...changed to something like this...

The focus of the Ombudsman is on process. That is: the Ombudsman's task is to identify whether or not staff have followed procedures consistent with the Moderator Guidelines. In cases where such procedures have not been followed, the Ombudsman's task is also to assess whether the deviation from procedures was in the best interest of the community, staff, and the founding principles of the board. The Ombudsman does not re-make staff decisions or second guess the substance of decisions.

[Octavia]

That works for me.

[RexT]

The idea for an "as needed ombuddy" was mine and at one point had almost universal support. It wasn't until the ombuddy position was looked at as a kind of guard of the guards that a permanent position was thought might be necessary.

In light of the recent decision to make all future policy procedures transparent, the position of a permanent guard of the guards seems unnecessary. If we go with the "as needed ombuddy" that should cover any problem that might seem to have occurred in the private forum. Or so I think.

[Arctish]

Yes to Ombuddy-at-need and to umop's suggested re-wording of the text.

[Jet Black]

I am concerned that we could become overwhelmed with ombudsman votes if at some stage someone starts demanding an ombudsman for every last little decision made, rendering the town hall a mess of calls for ombudsman intervention.

I am also concerned that unpopular or poorly known members who have a greviance with staff would be far less likely to get enough support for having an ombudsman to look at his or her situation.

[ravenscape]

I am concerned that we could become overwhelmed with ombudsman votes if at some stage someone starts demanding an ombudsman for every last little decision made, rendering the town hall a mess of calls for ombudsman intervention.

I am also concerned that unpopular or poorly known members who have a greviance with staff would be far less likely to get enough support for having an ombudsman to look at his or her situation.
This is a really big one, and a strong argument for either a standing ombuddy role, or for an automatic vote for an ombuddy (without a vote over whether one is warranted) in the case of things like suspensions.

[Pendaric]

I think in the case of a suspension an Ombudsman should be automatically appointed whether the person suspended has asked for one or not.

[Jet Black]

then why would we bother with votes? if an ombudsman is going to be appointed for every suspension, then wouldn't it be better to just have one in on a timed term?

[Bright Life]

Oh jeebus, this is a pain in the ass. I vote yes with Dean's consideration and with a timed term.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I think in the case of a suspension an Ombudsman should be automatically appointed whether the person suspended has asked for one or not.

I don't.

If no-one cares enough about a particular case to want an ombudsman, then why go through the hassle?

[Bright Life]

I think in the case of a suspension an Ombudsman should be automatically appointed whether the person suspended has asked for one or not.

I don't.

If no-one cares enough about a particular case to want an ombudsman, then why go through the hassle?Ditto. Too much crap to deal with.

[umop apisdn w,I]

I am concerned that we could become overwhelmed with ombudsman votes if at some stage someone starts demanding an ombudsman for every last little decision made, rendering the town hall a mess of calls for ombudsman intervention.

That could be a problem. I suppose frivolous over-use of the ombudsman system would be treated like frivolous over-use of the post reporting system - it would be treated as a symptom of a bigger problem with the member that needs sorting out.

I am also concerned that unpopular or poorly known members who have a greviance with staff would be far less likely to get enough support for having an ombudsman to look at his or her situation.

I'm less concerned about that. If someone is unpopular enough that no-one cares whether we followed proper procedure or not, then that is probably an indication that they were disruptive enough to the community that getting rid of them was justified even if it didn't follow proper procedure.

Although I can see that that might look like mob rule from some angles...

[Bright Life]

I am also concerned that unpopular or poorly known members who have a greviance with staff would be far less likely to get enough support for having an ombudsman to look at his or her situation.

I don't think that will be a problem, as so many here have Voltairian ethics.

[Christina]

I think that people will vote on the merit of the complaint and not on whether they know or like the person.

[Octavia]

^I think so too.

How about we try the "elect one when you need one" method for a bit. If it turns out that we're electing them all the time, go for a permanent timed position. If it turns out that we're not electing them all the time, we probably don't need a permanent timed position.

[Bright Life]

That seems reasonable, Octavia.

[Quizalufagus]

Yeah, that is reasonable. It's been so difficult to get consensus on the ombudsman issue that I think trying one of the models out is the only way to proceed.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Sounds good to me.

[RBH]

And to me. It'd be good to get something in place, and we can test drive per Octavia's to see how it runs.

[Jet Black]

I'm less concerned about that. If someone is unpopular enough that no-one cares whether we followed proper procedure or not, then that is probably an indication that they were disruptive enough to the community that getting rid of them was justified even if it didn't follow proper procedure.


Or it could be an indication that someone holds views that are not popular with everyone else, but does not necessarily indicate that they are disruptive - just that they are unpopular or the minority. This would include people like fundamentalist Christians and so on. General bias is one area here. If a particular member is constantly being singled out for doing something and is suspended, but complains that nobody else is being told off for doing the same thing and wants an ombudsman, everybody else is the majority, and our lone user is unlikely to be able to get 20 votes in support, even though s/he may well be right.

I do agree in general about the ombudsman position, but I do think that there are serious concerns with the voting system which may leave it open to abuse and not protect everyone adequately.

[umop apisdn w,I]

Which is why I said that it is probably and indication, not that it is an indication...

Like most things, it's not a perfect system - but is a compromise between protecting people with unpopular minority opinions from bias and allowing people to game the system by getting an ombudsman involved with every little niggle.

[Jet Black]

Which is why I said that it is probably and indication, not that it is an indication...

I know, and that's why I gave an example of something else that it could be an indication of.

Like most things, it's not a perfect system - but is a compromise between protecting people with unpopular minority opinions from bias and allowing people to game the system by getting an ombudsman involved with every little niggle.


perhaps, but then to some degree it leaves the people who are most likely to be biased against unprotected.

If the ombudsman is principally going to be used for suspensions, then even the most irritating niggly complainer is only going to get to call for an ombudsman three or four times before the suspension becomes a permanent ban.

If someone keeps calling for an ombudsman for niggly pointless things like thread moves/locks/splits/post edits, then why not have a "cry wolf" clause in which the right to an ombudsman just gets removed?

[Christina]

I like the idea of trying it out to see how it works as long as we pay close attention to the cases where someone requests an ombudsman but doesn't get the member support that they need. If relatively unknown people can't get enough support for what appear to be a valid complaints then we'll need to revisit that part.

[RBH]

If the ombudsman is principally going to be used for suspensions, then even the most irritating niggly complainer is only going to get to call for an ombudsman three or four times before the suspension becomes a permanent ban.

If someone keeps calling for an ombudsman for niggly pointless things like thread moves/locks/splits/post edits, then why not have a "cry wolf" clause in which the right to an ombudsman just gets removed?How about writing up what you think needs to be in it, then, hm?

[David B]

Yeah, that is reasonable. It's been so difficult to get consensus on the ombudsman issue that I think trying one of the models out is the only way to proceed.

Or forget about it and think about something else?

David B (has been increasingly leaning in this direction as the discussion, both in private, and subsequently in open, has proceeded)

[Quizalufagus]

Yeah, that is reasonable. It's been so difficult to get consensus on the ombudsman issue that I think trying one of the models out is the only way to proceed.

Or forget about it and think about something else?

David B (has been increasingly leaning in this direction as the discussion, both in private, and subsequently in open, has proceeded)

That's certainly another option. It does seem to me that many of the issues we'd hoped the ombudsman would fix have been resolved by other means. Take this forum, for example.

[David B]

Yeah, that is reasonable. It's been so difficult to get consensus on the ombudsman issue that I think trying one of the models out is the only way to proceed.

Or forget about it and think about something else?

David B (has been increasingly leaning in this direction as the discussion, both in private, and subsequently in open, has proceeded)

That's certainly another option. It does seem to me that many of the issues we'd hoped the ombudsman would fix have been resolved by other means. Take this forum, for example.

Yup.

I don't see that as quite enough though, so far, though staff are already more transparent and accountable than in most other boards I've seen.

Having a small group (say 3) of non staff people that staff and members alike would see as being independent, able thinkers, who are both open and fair minded, having read (only?) staff forum access, and hence the ability to whistle blow, who could serve as someone to appeal to in the event of serious dispute between member and staff would seem to me to be the way to go.

David (seriously suggests dumping the ombudsperson idea)

[dug_down_deep]

I think that a permanent ombudsperson (or group of such) will not ultimately be seen as independent, by anyone. I'm in favor of either abandoning the issue or settling on some temporary appointment procedure, which could require a threshold to be reached, measured by a poll in TH, perhaps.

[RexT]

Just a thought/question. Up to this point, we've already had a bit of netdrama (pretty odd really, considering we've only just opened the doors), but the point I'm getting at is that we managed alright without an ombudsman role. So my question is either; do we really need that role or else, what other situations that we haven't already experienced might require it?

[laughing dog]

I say it is time to getting our butts in gear and make it so.