Open Thread on Rules/Restrictions

[nickagneta]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

[barefacedmonk]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

[wdleehi]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

You mean the staff acted as if no rules was broke.  As in, we kept it between Nick and ourself.  Exactly like we said we would. 

We only explained what happened when others made mention of it.  Not because they were in the loop, but because they recognized Nick in his postings, no matter what the name is. 


It was at that point the staff explained what had happened.  If no one noticed or mentioned anything, Plamb account would still be locked and Nick would be posting as Nick.  The rule would have been addresses between the member as the staff. 

[BballTim]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

  Don't know why I'm commenting (or even reading this), but IMO this thread would be an absolute disaster. Every time I call Nick a sheep (get it? pLAMB, sheep?) he'd post in that thread that I should get disciplined. I'd then dredge up posts from others (or from Nick) that didn't result in a punishment. I'd insist that he should get an equal punisment for that old post. Any time Nick got in trouble, another poster (such as PLamb) would post that I should have been banned years ago and skated. If Roy ever suspended me I'd claim that he was holding a grudge about our "spirited discussions" about Rondo last summer. And that's just with me, and I'm pretty level-headed. Think of what might happen with some of the other posters...

[indeedproceed]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

#1: These members whoever they are, lied to you. This thread is proof. People get banned because they violate the rules, not because they're curious. As long as you ask questions in a respectful manner, you're gravy.

#2: Roy was not the only person who knew. Everyone knew. The problem was not that nick had a new account, the problem was that we as mods made the mistake of leaving his old one open, which was our issue, and nick as a poster used it to make a joke, which was his mistake. Since he was only allowed to commit his mistake because we made it possible by no following through with a ban on his old account, disciplining him didn't make much sense. Nick has said as much here on his own, so sharing this information isn't a big deal, but that brings me to #3....

#3: As you've read before, we don't discuss these things in public. This is completely out of character for the blog(discussing one particular incident, not discussing rules in general). The reasons are simple...It minimizes drama. If someone is banned it is because they broke the rules and either the infraction was so big that it is better just to move on, or either the member has been contacted and shown no inclination to change their behavior and no remorse for or understanding of their actions. Usually the second only occurs after someone has already been suspended, and reinstatement is being considered. In any case if someone is banned it is because other options have already been looked at. Lobbying from that person's friends or whatever would not help anyone. And, in actuality, people still lobby anyways.

#4) Nick is not the first guy who felt like he needed a fresh start on the blog for whatever reason. He's just the only one who had two accounts open, which was as I said before, our fault.

[nickagneta]

I didn't really want to post here...but I do have a suggestion. More transparency might help better this blog. The mods can be more transparent when it comes to enforcing the rules...like letting everyone know (via a thread or whatever means you think best) when you have to ban/suspend/issue a warning/ or take any action against a particular poster. Or when there is situation which may be viewed by some members as deserving some disciplinary action while the mods may think otherwise. A short post stating the reasons/explaination might help erase any doubts that could arise in other posters' minds and get rid of the favouritism perception if it exists. Just my 2 cents...over and out.

I understand the want to see this, but we believe that it is better handled behind the scene.  We don't want to make specticals out of every little issue that may come up.  I also think most posters do not want to have their issues being dragged out for everyone to see. 

I understand....but if any one the mods would have come out, as soon as the other thread was up, with a very short post stating the reason(s)/explaining why Nick was allowed to have two accounts, even though one was not being used, this whole debate on favouritism would have not occured and wouldn't have upset some people. Its not exactly a vote of confidence when the offender(i use this term for a lack of better word) has to explain why the enforcers did what they did( or didn't do in this case.)

Would it really though. As soon as the question was asked, the mods did explain it very nicely. And yet the thread ensued.

I look at the first page of that thread and I see IndeedProcced has put up a "Baby come back" video and Roy Hobbs says "Like all members who decide to move on for whatever reason, I wish Plamb the best.  He'll be missed; I hope he finds a way to continue to have his voice heard on the blog." (didn't you say Roy knew you had two accounts and asked you to choose either one)....I'm just using those two posts as examples....but that certainly doesn't seem like any of the mods tried to address it immediately...and again, I see you speaking for them...you can see how that might be viewed by some people as "Nick is part of the in crowd"....I'm new to this blog and I don't know how things work or which posters are percieved as the "in crowd"...but I have been warned by some members(I won't reveal names since they mentioned that in good faith) that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning. I don't want to be banned...I joined coz I like watching the game and discussing it in the live game threads...makes me feel like I'm watching the game with friends.

On page one of the thread Bahku asked the question if Nick=PLamb, PLamb=Nick at around 5:30PM. By the time MattG and darklord got around to asking the question if it was legal or not on page two it was 6:45 PM. The mods starting giving their interpretation of things before 7:30 PM.

That's pretty quick given that that time period is the time period for leaving work and having dinner on most of the east coast of the USA. The explanations did not however stop constant questioning and critiquing of how the situation was handled. My guess is that the questioning was going to occur whether the explanation happened on page 1 or page 3 or page 60. That's just the way this place is.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

I would urge the mods to consider the subject broached and urge that next time the subject gets brought up that maybe they take the perception concerns a little more seriously, instead of passing them off as veiled passive aggresive attacks on various posters, mods, or Celticsblog itself. 

If you think its a "serious problem" I suggest you take it more seriously be actually giving us enough information to address these "issues".

I said you could take the problem a little more seriously, not that it was a serious problem, per se.  My beef--outside of what I think is Celticsblog's perception problem--is that some questioned my motive, and didn't address my concerns.

I'd also urge you to read a little more carefully too.  If that sounds snide, or condescending, don't take it that way--it's just you've mis-read/mis-characterized what I've written multiple times already.  And you've done so while questioning my motive--not cool.

I have to use quotes around those because you have yet to say antyhing other than:

1. Its a perception issue

2. Its not your perception

Well, not quite (see my reading comprehension aside above).  I believe the mods aren't biased in reality, but I also agree with the perception that there's favoritism in this site's moderation.  If that doesn't make sense, I'd urge you to reread the thread.

Now, obviously we can't agree on whether there's a perception problem in the first place.  As there are relatively few of us even arguing the other side, I'm prepared to drop it for now.  I only urge you to remember these concerns when they crop up again in the future, as they invariably will, instead of dismissing them as rantings of an angry minority, something which is a bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy.

3. You have no examples

I've addressed the 'lack' of examples in a previous post.  "Perception" by its nature isn't created by this or that example, it's created by millions of differing examples, feelings, impressions, etc.  So, examples aren't germane to this conversation.  Further, if I were to bring some in, you'd just minimize their importance by pointing out that those examples--however many I brought in--are just the angry minority, therby using the nature of perception (that it's built up over time via hundreds/thousands/million of experiences) to discount my particular perception.  I'm not going to play that game.

And, technically, I have presented 'examples,' mainly the phenomenon whereby departing members cite the in-crowd/out-crowd, percieved favoritism as a reason or the reason for their leaving. 

4. You can't/won't tell us who holds these views

I have; specifically I've said that while I believe the mods in general aren't biased, I can still see and agree with the perception that there is favoritism in play, a perception fed by the lack of transperancy, the role of interpersonal conflict or rapport on the perception of rule breaking, and the inabilty to completely police the site. 

And if you want more names, just go through the "I'm leaving" threads. 

5. Your solution is for us to take PR more seriously.

Yep; an ombudsman would be a great start, provided you could find someone the mods and members would respect.

6. Despite replies from many different mods asking for specifics and giving their viewpoints we're not "taking it seriously". By which I guess you mean we disagree with your viewpoint.

Well, this is pretty much point #3 all over again, right?  I get that you disagree with the viewpoint that Celticblog has a perception problem; what I don't get is the need to impugn my motives instead of coming right out with your disagreement.  Like I said, arbiters of disagreement have a duty to recognize their limitations while attempting to look at both sides.  It seems as if you and some others would rather simply jump to defend your perception by questioning the motives of perceptions that don't agree with yours.  You need to start any disagreement by recognizing the validity of the other party's view point--sadly, something that's been missing here.

***

Listen, I'm ready to drop this. It only started as an observation and I really didn't intend it to go further than that.  I don't expect to convince anyone right now, all I ask is to remember the concern the next time it comes up, and to maybe, at that point, be prepared to take it seriously.

[Redz]

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

[nickagneta]

In SalmonandMashed's defense, apparently he now does have proof as barefacedmonk has come forward and said that there are some members that have come to him and said "that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning".

And to barefacedmonk, you've known me as PLamb and we have gotten along very well. I am still the same person with the same opinions and views. Do you think I was part of any "in" crowd then? Did you see me getting any special treatment then? I'm still the same guy.

You have now question the mods and lo and behold, you are still a member here and haven't been suspended. perhaps, just perhaps, the people you need to be questioning are the ones that told you about an "in" crowd and misled you regarding what happens to people that question mods.

[barefacedmonk]

In SalmonandMashed's defense, apparently he now does have proof as barefacedmonk has come forward and said that there are some members that have come to him and said "that I might get banned if I try to question the mods or their way of functioning".

And to barefacedmonk, you've known me as PLamb and we have gotten along very well. I am still the same person with the same opinions and views. Do you think I was part of any "in" crowd then? Did you see me getting any special treatment then? I'm still the same guy.

You have now question the mods and lo and behold, you are still a member here and haven't been suspended. perhaps, just perhaps, the people you need to be questioning are the ones that told you about an "in" crowd and misled you regarding what happens to people that question mods.

I can tell you that Salmon's posts aren't without merit because I was really surprised to see how many people emailed me to tell me that the 'in crowd' really exists. My short stay here has not given me a reason to believe that such thing exists.

I hope I didn't offend anyone with my posts in this thread because that really wasn't my intent...neither do I like to play the trouble maker.

As fo you, Nick...I'd said it before and I say it now...so far, I have no reason to believe that the 'in crowd' really exists. I do however find most of your posts as Nickagenta come across in an angry and confronting manner...I liked Plamb better(whatever that means).

Okay, now this really is my last post in this thread.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

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... 

[BudweiserCeltic]

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

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... 

I think this is pretty ridiculous. I really don't know what else to say to refute it.

[Fafnir]

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

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 this person be any different than a new moderator?

[Roy Hobbs]

In my opinion, there needs to be a ban on multiple accounts, active or not, if there's no disclosure about a poster's past. I don't understand the point of a fresh start when the odds of rehashing past drama are so high. I think this is a situation where the risk of creating controversy in the threads and leaving posters feeling upset is much higher than the benefit of letting someone change their username and post as someone new to the community.

On top of the problems I believe multiple usernames creates, changing your name and not telling anyone also just strikes me as dishonest. If this really is a community, then you shouldn't be able to put on a disguise and walk around pretending you're someone else. I think a lot of people treat this place like it's their neighborhood bar - a place you can go to relax, talk about the C's (or anything else you want), and maybe play a few games. People come and go, and that's fine, but if one person left and then came back trying to pick up a new persona, it would alienate that person and cause some problems at the bar. Seems to me like allowing multiple user names works against the community that has been built here.

What if your name was "GeraldGreenRules", or something?  Or, what if you made said something really dumb once, to the point where people continually took shots at you for it?  A clean start isn't such a bad thing.  The proper course of action, though, is to let the staff know what you're up to.

[SalmonAndMashedPotatoes]

So we're doing a hell of a good job, we just need a better PR department?

Yes, exactly.

If I was able to sum this up in 16 words (many of them quite small), why are we still discussing it?

Seriously.  The PR firm or ombudsman or whatever is beyond our means.  We do the best we can.  We are conscientious to a degree that I'd guarantee goes above and beyond the norm.  If there is a negative perception of our actions it's not based on any intent, but any amount of defense on our part just seems to serve as fuel to the fire.

Don't know what else to say really...The silent majority is never going to be heard over the vocal minority.  nature of the beast.

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 this person be any different than a new moderator?

Well, they wouldn't be moderating, they wouldn't have decision-making power, and they would be approved and voted in by members.  They would have knowledge of the site's innerworkings (which would be transparent to them), but they wouldn't have any direct power, other than the persuasiveness of their opinion.

I'm sure some might say: well, what's the point of that, they don't have power so it won't make a difference anyway!  Well, like I've been saying all along, if you have a perception problem, you don't necessarily have to change a thing, you just have to change the perception of the thing.  So, the next time somebody makes the favoritism charge, you kindly acknowledge the complaint and direct them to the ombudsman, who's job it is to be an independent and objective reviewer of everything that happens on the site, basically a middle man between moderators and members.  And then the ombudsman makes his or her findings, either periodically to the site as a whole, or in private to concerned members.

Of course, the ombudsman's opinion would need to be respected, or the whole appearance thing wouldn't work.  To get that respect from the members, the members would periodically choose one from amongst their ranks, and to get that respect from the moderators, the moderators would have to approve of the members' selection, and then make a committment to respect the ombudsman's opinion after they approve the selection.

Or something like that.  I'm just brainstorming off the top of my head--the actual parameters of the ombudsman are negotiable, just like everything else.