OMM System

I think FireZ said they would try the method out without getting the other OMM's opinions

 

Yes, people who had interaction with the user on a few occasions or as their middleman for one trade should be voting. I'm sure it would not be biased at all, or a popularity contest either.

With OMM's providing an opinion, they will only be providing -real- feedback, as they will be required to provide opinions regarding ALL the trades in the application as a whole, rather than an opinion of what they know regarding the user or how 1 trade was handled (community member example).

It would certainly be more heads which is not needed. The bias from the community would be high and if the person was ultimately not promoted, how do you think the community would respond?

Their opinion is not to change the mind(s) of the upper staff, but merely to provide additional opinions or point out important things which may have been otherwise missed by the upper staff. The competition brought on by having new middlemen would not be a factor in my opinion, because it would be obvious if someone was basing their opinion of the application on that and would most likely have their privileges revoked (to provide an opinion).

Correct. They're giving us the power to do actually do something within the private forum which has otherwise been dead.

Done.

Waiting.

 

I said it would be a popularity contest, read over. They have much more experience with the member applying than any of you OMMs do.

They don't have a clue just looking at the trades of how the trade went down. Not sure what you're trying to point out here.

The reason they just thought of this was for more heads. The community wouldn't even notice if they weren't promoted, most likely.

That's what the opinion is for. The extra push in either direction. If you think otherwise.. We'll stop here.

What way would you be able to tell if they were basing their "vote" off that?

They were saying they aren't giving them any extra "power" here.

Private forum is useless for an OMM honestly. Sure, nice they're thinking of a way to use it, but not this way.

 

5char because it got eaten by the first-page rush

 

I was being sarcastic.

Furthermore, I don't see how the community (as a whole) has more experience about the entire process of becoming an OMM than actual OMM's. That's illogical at best.

Looking at each trade individual won't be the only factor. Posting habits and other things outlined by Dave will also be put into consideration.

You're joking, right? Any time something has come up giving the community and opportunity to chime in, it's resulted in massive negative feedback for staff, multiple unnecessary threads, being criticized by many users.

If you try and ask for examples I won't provide them. It's already been happening (look at this thread, for example). Check for yourself.

I don't understand what you're trying to say. This is the purpose of having OMM's review the application before it goes to voting. If something would otherwise be missed by the staff, it only proves the importance of having it reviewed prior.

Voting against the user without solid evidence or reason would be a good indicator.

It's not "extra power", but an opportunity rather.

How do you know it's useless? What way does it need to be used?

 

Because they've used these guys as MM's unlike the OMMs? They have experience with the members, whereas the OMMs have none. Sure the OMMs have gone through the process, that doesn't change a thing.

I'd like to see what would be factored.

I don't know any cases where this has happened, but I'm also fairly new. If this is so, the community is just full of kids.

If they are only reviewing, looking to make sure everything is complete and such, I wouldn't mind. I was on the idea of they'd be relaying their thoughts over the promotion in general.

You just called it a power in your previous post.

You just told me it's useless in your previous post. I wouldn't have an idea how to use the forum, and there really is no purpose to it. Therefore useless is the perfect word.

 

The fact OMM's would be viewing the application from the outside means they would naturally be unbiased when providing an opinion. What you're suggesting would allow members to provide opinions/decisions with bias, as they're already familiar with the user.

PM Dave if you have any concerns regarding this.

Have you seen the spam forum?

That's what they would be doing. What they say could potentially impact/affect the promotion, but it would have to be based on hard evidence or a legitimate reason.

I was replying to the fact you labeled it as "power" in the first place.

^ Original post.

Calling it "dead" doesn't mean it's "useless".

The forum certainly serves a purpose, but there hasn't been anything as of late requiring any decisions to be made.
I don't see any reason to call a forum "useless" based on the reason of "I don't know how to use it".

 

I don't agree that you'll get genuine feedback from the community. I agree that SOME people in this forum are more than willing to provide their honest feedback on people, but the staff isn't asking for you to rate a user on a scale of 1/10 on how much you like them or how much you trust them. In a normal scenario, I'd say yes the community feedback would be important but the reason staff believe it will be a popularity contest is because of a huge point that you're failing to address. These are people applying to become Official Middlemen. This rank holds nothing as far as being community involved, their opinion matters only in the part of being a Middleman. Thus, I don't care if people in the community think "oh yeah they're an asset" or "oh yeah I trust them would make good OMM" I care about the opinions of other people who endured the same rigorous application process that the person applying went through. The people giving their insight have been through all of the ups and downs of middlemanning and were given their OMM title as a position that comes with both trust but more importantly KNOWLEDGE of middlemanning, and thus their opinion matters 150x more than a regular community member's. If a member has a specific thing to say about someone applying to be an OMM, there's a feedback portion of a person's actual application and it should be posted on the app itself, that's what part of the OMM application process consists of. However, the discussion will go to OMMs and staff members because the OMMs are people who actually understand what it means to be a OMM, they know the requirements, the safety precautions, etc. that a OMM must take in order to maintain their position and these kinds of people can asses whether or not an applicant is fit for the position.

If a community member has negative feedback, they should post it on the users application, that's literally what it's for. People post their either positive or negative feedbacks, but most of the community will just go and post "Good luck on OMM, vouch!" and that's not helpful. If any community member wants to post an honest opinion, then go ahead and post it on their application, don't be afraid to do so.

If that's the argument you're gonna use, then you might as well say that all discussion is absolutely useless because it causes decisions to get swayed one way or another and thus we should remove all discussion between the community, OMMS, and even lower lounge members and only leave the votes to USL, which is absolutely insane. There is no competition, OMMs work with one-another to help with middlemanning. I don't think I've ever seen two OMMs compete over getting a trade, this isn't a market, it's a service used to help people trade safely.

Truth be told, I'd rather give more power to someone who knows the process of the OMM application and what it means to be an OMM than to someone who comes onto Sythe and tries to create a tighter nit community or a funnier spam forum. Again, OMMing is strictly about middlemanning, nothing more.

No intention of closing this thread unless it becomes a shit-show where people basically say "the community deserves more input on this" and then continues to repeat the reasons that have already been stated and explained. If there are other legitimate concerns I'd be more than happy to address them, but all your concerns have been addressed on multiple occasions and all I see is people re-stating them over and over. I don't want to close this thread and I'll happily address any concerns you have, that's why I publicly posted this in the first place.

 

Superfluous who just recently got denied OMM had a conversation with me about how to improve his application, this is what I said to him. These are the things that both OMMS and staff will be assesing, and the reason OMMs will be better at judging this than normal community members is because OMMs know more about various parts of middlemanning more than any regular community member does. OMMs know about the things listed in the PM below because they've gone through it before.

The things listed in the last PM are the things that OMMs will be helping to look at because they fully understand what those aspects of middlemanning actually entail.

 

Oh my God. Y'all act like OMM's are the bias scum of the Earth that don't want any more OMM's. It's not that competitive, the OMM market isn't exactly profitable and it really doesn't matter whether they have a say or not. It's not like gold websites competing for a slice of the market; OMM's WANT more OMM's because they actually care about user safety. How many OMM's currently MM? Like, what, 5 tops?

This has been blown way out of proportion. There probably wont even be a change in the number of OMM's accepted.

 

It has not been blown out of proportion. You are refusing to discuss it, locking and deleting threads. When you act like there is corruption and a coverup, people assume there is corruption and a coverup. Prove there isn't.

The opinions of the people that are actually using the MMs mean nothing? How high of a horse are you on? They mean everything. The opinions of other OMMs are worthless. They are not trading with other MMs. Answer this question: How will an OMM know how another MM acts in a trade? Do OMMs just sit in on shit tons of trades to make sure everything is going smoothly?

Knowledge of MMing? Look through their application and what trades them have done. You already have that information and other OMMs are not going to be able to provide it. The information is already available for you from THE COMMUNITY. The OMMs are worthless for that aim.

You have not addressed any of my concerns nor it seems the concerns of other community members. Saying it does not make it true.

 

Corruption? don't make me laugh. Every decision we make will be wrong to you, because you can't accept anything but your way. It will not hurt the process, OMM's aren't out to put each other out of business. OMM's will have a thread to present any evidence/anything they've heard about said candidate in a thread. There is nothing stopping anyone doing this or sending things to Dave - we're just creating a thread to talk about it in.

It's the smallest "change" ever and you're making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

You want him to prove that assumptions are assumptions?

Please remind me the definition of assumption...
Otherwise, please provide evidence of corruption and a coverup regarding this new system.

They will only provide bias when it comes to the applications. It will solely be a popularity contest, as the majority of people will blindly "support!" the user for being an OMM without actually looking through any of the trades the MM assisted in, their posting habits, or anything else which may not make the user OMM-worthy.

Whether an OMM would ever use an MM is completely irrelevant. An OMM will know how another MM acts in a trade by reviewing all 25 submissions they've included in their application. It's obvious they very rarely sit in on trades, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make at all. Their purpose will be to review the trades included within the application.

Have you even read anything that I've been trying to say on this thread, or was your sole purpose of posting merely to attack Dave and Roary, because that's exactly what it looks like.

What information are you saying OMM's will not be able to provide? Of course OMM's know what they've been through. They've actually went through the entire process; some have even had multiple applications they needed to submit in order to be accepted. Yet again, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. The sole purpose of the current system is for OMM's to provide opinions based on the applications (and etc. as listed above) as they know what it actually takes to become an OMM. The advice we should be able to provide to people trying to become an OMM should be invaluable, but it seems like you're trying to discredit every OMM and label them as worthless.

That's not something I'll ever stand behind.

As you've had many 'concerns', I'm uncertain what you're talking about here, but I'll let you and Dave suss it out.

 

Smallest change ever. Beibg blown way out of proportion.

 

Ad hominem attack. There is a large distinction between being able to send PMs to Dave and being engrained into a business process. I'm not sure how I can explain this without saying "go read a few business management books". People always have biases. Always. These change how they approach a situation. Example: The staff will act differently in their relations with the public than they would in the staff lounge. You assume things about your audience, your peers, etc. You assume about their qualification, their experience, the value of what they say. You also have assumptions about the way things work. People hate meetings because people hate meetings. Meeting are unproductive because they are viewed to be unproductive and boring. To make them productive you have to change how people VIEW them.

In the context of OMM applications OMMs are just community members (or just staff members if they are on staff). As I think Dave has made clear, the input of community members is 150 times less important than an OMMs. So this "mole hill" is elevating OMMs to the equivalent of 150 members. So if you take what Dave says literally it means that if 149 members say that the person is an awful scammer and one OMM says he is perfect, the staff would be inclined to think the guy was great. The staff's trivialization of the issue is making this into an issue. Does that make sense or should I explain it more? I'm trying to not write a book.

I'm not assuming anything. I'm taking evidence and reaching a conclusion, which could be and likely is wrong.

I'm not sure where this popularity contest idea is coming from. Read my quote to Roary about elevating OMMs. I can go more into depth if you wish.

Why should the OMMs review the applications? Sin666 used to do that. I think that it should be the HMM's job ideally. What is gained from the OMMs doing it?

I really also do not understand why it looks like I'm attacking Roary and Dave. I'm not calling them assholes. I'm not calling them stupid. I haven't really said anything TO them. I just don't understand why anything I have said is coming across as an attack?

I'm saying that the OMMs do not provide any additional information that the staff does not already have. Or at least that is what it seems like. What could they possibly know about MMing that the HMM does not know?

How am I discrediting OMMs or calling them worthless? I really do not understand where you are getting that from.

 

Grammar nazi, Fix Beibg to Being ;p

 

You said "people assume there is corruption and a coverup", providing no evidence of such claims. You're taking -what- evidence and reaching a conclusion regarding -what-? You're trying to claim nothing based on nothing. Don't know what any of this was in regards to, but I'm fairly certain it's wrong at this point.

Stickly mentioned it in the thread and it has been debated upon multiple times. This is why I asked if you even read the thread. If you can provide the quote to Roary regarding elevating OMM's (PM would be best), I will read it.

If it would be solely the HMM's job, it is wrong of him/her to ask for help from the other OMM's he's responsible to look over? OMM's reputation is one built on trust, and if he/she can't respect our opinions or value as an asset to the website, then I don't think he/she would be doing their "job" properly.

I've already stated multiple times in this thread what OMM's will be assisting in. Not going to continue repeating.

Based on your posting habits analyzing everything they've done as of late, and picking out what they have stated instead of every other valid claim in this thread is why I was looking at it as an attack. You should read the thread and claims made so far rather than jumping in and responding to only the most recent posts.

In most cases, this may be true. However, having OMM's provide additional insight will only help, as there may be information may have otherwise been looked over (yet again, stated multiple times in the thread).

You said it in your initial post.

 

It's been lost in the multiple threads. If the staff just says something is happening, in a locked thread, about why that new thing won't work, does not explain anything, attacks anyone who questions it, will not answer questions, explain themselves, lock and delete any threads dealing with it... It looks like corruption and a coverup.

It is in my post that you quoted... Right above your quote...

Let's recount everything that has been said (of any substance) by the staff regarding this issue before this thread.

^tl;dr: OMMs get ingrained into the process through discussion. No details mentioned.

^tl;dr: MMs have experience. Staff get more information. OMMs are inactive. Give them a chance to contribute. No details or explanation about what is actually going to happen.

^tl;dr: OMM's have information. Like lower staff discussions for staff. Dismisses all bias and conflict of interest using lower staff discussion example. A bit of vague and non-specific detail.

^tl;dr: Your issues have been addressed now shut up.

Back to this thread:

&Unbanned: Your posts have been more informative and helpful than those of an admin and the HMM. All I wanted in my first thread was an actual explanation of how it would not run into issues. Instead I get no real explanation and the thread gets locked. I make a new one and I get told they have answered all concerns and I get threatened with another lock. You talk about me attacking the staff as they blatantly dismiss me for being me. Then someone other than me posts a thread and suddenly a discussion is perfectly fine, which I knew would happen. This thread started as a Sythechat discussion. I told someone to post a thread because I knew that it would explode but only if it was not ME that posted it. I'm perfectly happy being that guy that doesn't afraid of anything even though it means I'll get treated like this.

Opinions of OMM are worthless in this context. Please don't take my words out of context.

So let me summarize your posts since the information is so scattered.

1) Pending OMM applications get discussed in the OMM forums by the OMMs.
2) Discussions are structured such that the OMMs look at the applications and the trades within.
3) Would be similar to what Sin666 used to do looking over the trades, making sure that they are correct.
4) Would tell staff any issues they find in the application and the trades within them.
4a) Could be that the application is wrong
4b) Could be that the applicant is not good at x, y, or z
4c) Could be that the applicant is particularly skilled at a, b, or c
4d) Etc, but related to the application itself.

Is that summary sufficient or is there more to it?

 

To address your concern about the OMM system changes;

Yes, they would look at the application alongside Dave and the upper-staff and voice any concerns about the application itself, for example, if a proof has a screenshot missing or they don't like how the candidate spoke to the users during a trade (to name but a few). They would also have a chance to present any findings/evidence they have encountered such as when someone asks you to middleman and tells you "I went to X first and Y happened" - middlemen hear a lot of this that some upper-staff may not. Obviously, upper-staff are professional enough to know to take all proof-less accusations with a large pinch of salt and not to blindly base their vote on such comments. They would be encouraged to post proof of this behaviour when possible.

So essentially, your summary is pretty much the extent of their involvement. It is nothing major or system-changing. It's unlikely to change the rate of OMM acceptance at all, but would increase activity and responsibility of the OMMs.

 

Alright but I think what you've quoted from Dave implies something much different than what I gleaned from what Unbanned said. Or at least how I read what Dave was saying sounded much different. What Unbanned has talked about is perfectly fine.