And let me start off by saying I'm not going to criticize the decision to take general access away from Big Guys. I liked having it but I'm not married to it. In fact, when I first dived into stunty I actually "wasted" a few doubles on block because I hadn't read the stunty rules carefully at all.. But getting block is never really a waste.

In any case, during my ban I was following along what was happening in the deadlings/Stunty Winds of Change threads and I noticed the personal attacks were flying hot and heavy. The result of this was an Admin resigned as the Stunty Director, and Christer got involved to sort things out and make some changes. Well, maybe some changes in the way we treat each other are necessary.

That probably sounds funny from the guy that "retaliated" but I happen to think it's true. Playing here doesn't cure cancer or anything, it just lets us pass the time in what should be an enjoyable fashion. Let's face it, if you're not enjoying this experience you might want to consider finding something else to do because getting upset over any of this really isn't worth it in the long run.

I don't know who was right and who was wrong in the debacle that occurred in the stunty thread, but mediation might have been a better solution than a knock down, dragged out flame war. Like it or not, valid or not, there is a perception in the community that the admins basically run this place in an off-hand and arbitrary way. While I'm sure not everyone feels this way, maybe not even a majority, I can't help but feel this way myself sometimes and based on my own recent experiences I feel that this is at least partially true on some level.

What then, is the solution? I don't think admins should make up their own rules interpretations for the site but I also don't think they ought to be flamed at every opportunity either because even I can concede that they have a difficult task that they are trying to perform in good faith and I won't question the latter as long as I don't actually witness something that tells me otherwise. The solution is an ombudsman.

I'm only familiar with this position in the University setting, but governments set up these officers as well, though obviously they operate somewhat diffrently. Basically, ombudsman are the go to people for complaints from the community at large. Such a person can act in a conflict resolution role between an individual and the administration and/or provide a "truth to power" voice for the community at large to the administration without fear of reprisal. So if you felt like and admin "did you wrong" you could talk to the ombudsman about it. At minimum (and probably at maximum in most cases) the ombudsman give the complaintant and ear, questions them in a gentle/friendly manner about the complaintant's level of knowledge about the administrations rules, procedures and policies, and then explains on that basis why the issue shouldn't be taken any further.

But if the ombudsman notices an overall pattern developing of community members being inconvenienced or hassled either because a rule isn't having the intended effect or an official is using his or her office as a blunt instrument against community members then the ombudsman will then become an advocate for change and take up the problem with the administration, sounding an alert while also proposing reasonable and viable changes.

Now, what I say next many people will see as a fatal flaw in an ombudsman position. Ombudsman can propose change and help mediate disputes but they can't enforce change or exact a judgement That's still left to the administration. It has to be that way. Otherwise, instead of having one administration there would effectively be two. So and ombudsman must not only be able to listen to the community and identifying issues, but also must exercise clear judgement about when to bring an issue forward, present it to the administration and at that time be skillful in their presentation of the facts and possible remedies. In other words, an ombudsman would not be in a position to abuse admins, simply to advise them.

So I suggest Christer creates the position of ombudsman. It wouldn't undercut the authority of the admins, in fact, in some ways it will probably enhance it. And just maybe, people wouldn't feel picked on and engage in flame wars in the forums. Well, at least there would probably be less of them.

In closing, I am looking forward to the new stunty. But I do think established teams should be grandfathered. It has precedence in other divisions, so why not stunty?