TalkBoard Topics - Proposed amend TB guidelines: TB members take leave of absence from moderator duty

I propose that the talkboard guidelines be amended to require TB members to take a leave of absence from their moderation duties while they serve on the TB.

I further propose that the TB recommend to the TB Host that the TB President and Vice-President be made liaison to the moderator corps, and be granted access to moderator forums and meetings.

Among the reasons I think this is a good idea:

- TB is meant to represent the posters. While moderators are also posters, moderators experience FT in a VERY different way than posters. It's not a perfect analogy, but generally their perspective is that of an employee rather than a customer. I for one would prefer that a customer focus group be made up of customers rather than a mix of customers and employees, even if the employees use the service as often as many customers. After all, even though flight attendants fly may more than 1ks both while working and on SA, an airline customer focus group would never include flight attendants. Their perspective is simply different.

Specifically, by splitting duties between TB and moderator a person may have divided loyalties and/or a conflict of interest. Not that they DO, but they COULD. For example: mega-threads. A moderator may find that creating mega-threads is a simple and easy way to moderate a forum. But the TB could conceivably propose recommending that mega-threads be discouraged (I personally think mega-threads are destroying the user experience). A moderator would have to weigh their desire to have an easy way to moderate and save themselves time against the customer's desire to discourage mega-threads via their TB representatives. Such conflicts are easily avoided by having the TB be purely customer-focused.

- The TB is increasingly ceding authority to moderators to make recommendations for FT. I believe this is happening because moderator members of TB see moderators corps discussion issues and taking action so do not feel the need for the TB to weigh in on issues. By creating an actual separation of powers, TB members will only have the perspective of the user experience to guide their actions and recommendations, independent from the actions and decisions of the moderator corps.

- There are many people who desire to serve and only so many slots to go 'round. It's grand to see so many titles under a single person's name, but it would be better to see fewer titles under more people's names.

- Clearly there should be coordination between moderators and the TB. Hence my suggestion that the TB recommend that the president and vp/s represent the tb to the moderator corps on an ongoing basis.

I think this proposal would re-invigorate the TB and make to more focused on the customer/poster experience. ^

I don't support this proposal.

Every moderator started out here on FlyerTalk as a member, just like everyone. One usually spends considerable time as a member before volunteering to moderate. I don't buy into the assertion that some magic transformation occurs once that happens that makes the member no longer see things as other members do (i.e. different perspective as the OP hypothesizes). If anything, it may give them an added perspective which can be a asset, rather than a liability.

TalkBoard sometimes asks moderators for their opinions on matters and rightly so. Their perspective can be quite valuable when it comes to issues concerning a forum or creation/alteration/deletion of a (similar) forum. The moderators of a forum quite probably spend the most amount of time in a given forum and can offer very valuable insights to that forum and its operations.

The TalkBoard officers are selected by the TalkBoard. Their position has nothing to do with moderation. The moderators are selected by the host. The current host has stated time and time again (though some have have chosen to try to shout down the host on this and select other issues) that TalkBoard is not to involve itself in moderation. In January, SanDiego1K will become Community Director. I do not presume to speak for her, but the decision as to whether this policy will continue is hers to make. I do not plan to support a motion that attempts to change the current host's wishes, i.e. attempt to plant the TalkBoard officers into the moderators' forum.

The decision as to whether moderators can serve on TalkBoard does and should continue to lie squarely with the members who vote for their TalkBoard representatives. There hasn't been an all-moderator or all-non-moderator slate of candidates that I can remember. There is usually a large number of candidates to select 4 or 5 representatives from as well.

I have complete and absolute support for kokonutz's proposal, and with his permission, would like to introduce it as a motion to TalkBoard once it has run its course of discussion here.

moderatoeration

Is that when a moderator makes a "foot in the mouth" moderating decision?? :p

Seriously, I don't have any real strong feelings one way or the other over your proposal.

On one hand I think that, as in any election, we should leave who's being elected up to the voters.

On the other hand I do think that TB should be composed of typical members and I do agree that moderators probably do not experience FT the same as most other members. Whether that makes them better or worse TB members is a matter open for debate.

I'll be interested to read the comments here both pro and con.

I don't support this proposal.

Every moderator started out here on FlyerTalk as a member, just like everyone. One usually spends considerable time as a member before volunteering to moderate. I don't buy into the assertion that some magic transformation occurs once that happens that makes the member no longer see things as other members do (i.e. different perspective as the OP hypothesizes). If anything, it may give them an added perspective which can be a asset, rather than a liability.

Agree. I don't see the purpose served by creating two types of members who can and cannot hold office. If TB is open to one it should be open to all.

Agree. I don't see the purpose served by creating two types of members who can and cannot hold office. If TB is open to one it should be open to all.

I do not support restricting who can run for TB. I support requiring that one serve in one branch of FT administration at a time. One should not be a sitting judge AND a legislator at the same time. A judge should take a leave of absence from the bench while serving as a legislator.

Spiff, I completely disagree with you that moderators and regular posters experience FT in the same way, or that moderators have an 'enhanced' user experience. I expected this knee-jerk reaction from moderators/TB members, frankly. Question: how the heck do you know?! When was the last time you experienced FT as only a poster?

Further, it is the duty of the TB to make RECOMMENDATIONS to the TB host. He or she is by no means bound by them. But the TB's job is to make recommendations to improve the FT user experience. I strongly believe this recommendation would.

B747, by all means, go for it.

Question: how the heck do you know?! When was the last time you experienced FT as only a poster?

TalkBoard representatives are also members first. I volunteered to serve on TalkBoard in 2002. :)

Further, it is the duty of the TB to make RECOMMENDATIONS to the TB host. He or she is by no means bound by them. But the TB's job is to make recommendations to improve the FT user experience. I strongly believe this recommendation would.

Recommendations, yes. Good recommendations. I don't believe this is a good recommendation for reasons listed above in post #2.

TalkBoard representatives are also members first. I volunteered to serve on TalkBoard in 2002. :)



Recommendations, yes. Good recommendations. I don't believe this is a good recommendation for reasons listed above in post #2.

Yes, members FIRST. But NOT member only. A FA has a vastly different perspective on being a customer on the airline he or she works for. A VASTLY different perspective. And you've had that different experience for over 8 years!

What's wrong with asking our TB members to experience FT the same way that the people they represent do while they serve on the TB?

Yes, members FIRST. But NOT member only. A FA has a vastly different perspective on being a customer on the airline he or she works for. A VASTLY different perspective. And you've had that different experience for over 8 years!

TalkBoard vs. Non-TalkBoard FlyerTalker: It's not a VASTLY different perspective just because you say it is and/or use CAPITALS. :)

What's wrong with asking our TB members to experience FT the same way that the people they represent do while they serve on the TB?

I don't think anyone should be restricted to one volunteer position and that the voters should be free to choose for themselves who represents them.

To use your wacky example above, should an FA not be allowed to fly revenue? :D :p

To use your wacky example above, should an FA not be allowed to fly revenue? :D :pSure they can fly revenue. But they should not be participating in customer surveys or focus groups. Becaue they do not have a customer perspective. They have a customer perspective through the lens of an employee. @:-)

I don't think anyone should be restricted to one volunteer position and that the voters should be free to choose for themselves who represents them.
I agree. They can elect anyone they want. But those elected, once elected, should be required to have the same perspective of FT that the people they represent do, not the perspective of someone whose pririties are split between the user experience and the moderator experience.

Sure they can fly revenue. But they should not be participating in customer surveys or focus groups. Becaue they do not have a customer perspective. They have a customer perspective through the lens of an employee. @:-)

Nonetheless, if the passengers on a given flight were asked to select representatives, it should be up to the passengers to select whomever they wish. @:-)

I agree. They can elect anyone they want. But those elected, once elected, should be required to have the same perspective of FT that the people they represent do.

I don't agree. If that were the case, the voters could mandate that their candidate step down from other duties before voting for that candidate. And voters should be able to select someone with an added perspective of moderation or otherwise if they choose to do so.

should an FA not be allowed to fly revenue?

Not if they are already operating the same flight.

Not if they are already operating the same flight.

It's a pretty poor analogy anyway. My position remains firm: it should be up to the members of FlyerTalk who represents them on TalkBoard, regardless of what volunteer position(s) such representatives hold and continue to hold.

If a FlyerTalk member has a problem with moderators representing them, then the solution is simple: don't vote for moderators. In all elections that I can recall, it was possible for one to cast all of one's votes for non-moderator candidates. One can even choose to vote for fewer candidates than the maximum.

I do not support restricting who can run for TB.

No, though how many Mod.'s would step away from that role to run for TB? Would it cause some to give TB a pass leaving the membership poorer for their lost insights and experience?

Sorry, I'll repeat my opinion that it's a slipperly slope to start legislating who can and who cannot hold office and not a change I'd be in favor of. MHO and YMMV.

I have to say that whilst I laud your aim of 'reinvigoration TB' I don't think this is how to do it. The problem with the current TB appears to be that there are two groups - those who believe everything is fine in our little world, and those that would like to see some changes.

This split is not along Mod/non-Mod TB member lines.

The current TB hasn't even been able to appoint a new liaison with the Mod Team since Spiff became VP! I think this tells you something about the view of TB about the Mod Team and liaison.;)

That we had a contested election for President of TB (and VP) this year should indicate that there is discontent about the way things have been run. I suspect that with annual elections, it may take several years before we can build up enough TB members who favour some changes, to out vote the members who see everything as fine. I fear this proposal will not achieve what you want.

I currently don't have a strong opinion on this subject matter. As a former moderator & a TB member, I don't see as much moderator influence as noted. I will, however, say that I feel that if a moderated forum is up for discussion, the moderator's viewpoint is often taken into consideration by many TB members (but not in all cases - for example, the logged in restriction recommendation for Mileage Run).

Although I'm not really in a position to make this recommendation as TB has no impact on moderation, I think a better proposal would be that moderators take a mandatory leave of absence or sabbatical every 18-24 months for a 3-6 month period to remember what it's like to actually be a member.

I don't see as much moderator influence as noted.

This has been my experience as well.

The current TB hasn't even been able to appoint a new liaison with the Mod Team since Spiff became VP! I think this tells you something about the view of TB about the Mod Team and liaison.;)

Respectfully, here's what our guidelines say about liason to the Mod team:

The President will also serve as or appoint anouther TalkBoard member as a liaison between the TalkBoard and the moderator corps.

So the TalkBoard has not been deadlocked or inert here.

That we had a contested election for President of TB (and VP) this year should indicate that there is discontent about the way things have been run.Again, quite respectfully, both were settled on the first ballot. In the former case that required support from 2/3rds rather than simply a majority. And this was achieved in a 3-way race.

This wasn't the first contested TalkBoard President election. Two years ago it was contested as well.

If one member of TB says there is discontent about the leadership of TB, the fact that someone won the election doesn't mean that that discontent is magically resolved. It just means one person defeated another. If some of the TB members are unhappy with the direction of TB, how TB affairs are handled likely needs to be changed for that discontent to be resolved. Now, it might not be a majority who are unhappy... but all the election does is elect someone not make everyone happy with the result.

Respectfully, here's what our guidelines say about liason to the Mod team:
So the TalkBoard has not been deadlocked or inert here.
Again, quite respectfully, both were settled on the first ballot. In the former case that required support from 2/3rds rather than simply a majority. And this was achieved in a 3-way race.
This wasn't the first contested TalkBoard President election. Two years ago it was contested as well.
Respectfully Gleff, having said the above, what are your thoughts on the OP of this thread? As this proposal would no doubt affect you considering you are Senior Moderator(appointed), Talk Board President(elected), and power FT blogger(commercial)?!

Respectfully, here's what our guidelines say about liason to the Mod team:



So the TalkBoard has not been deadlocked or inert here.

Again, quite respectfully, both were settled on the first ballot. In the former case that required support from 2/3rds rather than simply a majority. And this was achieved in a 3-way race.

This wasn't the first contested TalkBoard President election. Two years ago it was contested as well.

So, unlike in previous years I take it that you have decided that you have enough time to liaise with the Mod Corps I assume. Well that's great to know and I look forward to hearing how that's working out.

In terms of the vote, absolutely respect that you got elected on the first round - well done. I'll be making a motion pretty soon to ensure that the elections are held in a more structured as the current guidelines don't lay down how elections should be conducted in the cases of contested elections in very much detail.

Excellent proposal, kokonutz, but Spiff will block it, like everything else.

So, unlike in previous years I take it that you have decided that you have enough time to liaise with the Mod Corps I assume. Well that's great to know and I look forward to hearing how that's working out.Except for last year the TalkBoard Vice President also served as liason to the moderator group, and the TalkBoard Vice President has again agreed to do so.

Respectfully Gleff, having said the above, what are your thoughts on the OP of this thread? As this proposal would no doubt affect you considering you are Senior Moderator(appointed), Talk Board President(elected), and power FT blogger(commercial)?!

Not sure what the 'commercial' reference is? (Other than that Randy sells ad space ont he blog)

But as to the issue at hand I don't see any conflict between serving as a moderator and as a TalkBoard member. Quite the contrary,

(1) greater time spent with Flyertalk as both a member and as a volunteer is a signal of significant dedication

(2) it provides wonderful perspective in making judgments that TalkBoard members are wont to do.

(3) it's precisely folks that have demonstrated commitment and competence in one form that you want to ask to do so in others

If you want something done, ask a busy person. If you want the best for the community, ask someone who has demonstrated commitment tot the community.

That doesn't mean necessarily moderators, of course. But I don't see an inherent conflict between the two roles.

That having been said, I'm more than comfortable with asking folks to take a break from both roles every now and then. Which is a different issue entirely.

Excellent proposal, kokonutz, but Spiff will block it, like everything else.

I can hardly claim the ability, past or present to "block everything". 1 person, 1 vote.

If you don't want moderators representing you, then you have the choice not to vote for them. @:-)

I'm back from travel, I actually have to do work for a paying client (novel thought), and I'm sure I'll take some heat so I should probably not post before my upcoming conf call overseas, but I will..

I'm still not getting the mod/TB black helicopter thing. And again - I am NOT a mod. For the record I have not been paid by mods, blah, blah.

And again - for the record - w/ my 1 vote - I will not be voting for the TB members taking a leave of absence from mod duties - or vice versa for that matter. I think both can do both well.

And granted I'm tired, but when did anything TB related have to be 100%? If multiple folk run for an office, odds are that the vote might be split. If a proposal/motion is made, odds are the vote might be split.

BTW - what the heck are contested elections? To me that sounds like interference w/ votes, bring in folk to count the chads! In both the Prez & VP voting, there was a choice in the first round of voting. Multiple folk running that didn't win doesn't make an election 'contested' - or did I miss something?

And re: this comment: "The problem with the current TB appears to be that there are two groups - those who believe everything is fine in our little world, and those that would like to see some changes." Heck, I'm brand new to TB & I don't fall into either group, so I'd appreciate it if others don't speak for me.

Again I know this is a novel thought, but I intend to listen to FTers, other TB members, our Host, do some research & make my decisions when TB votes or proposals or motions come up on the merits & not because I'm supposed to fall into some pre-formed way to vote. Geesh. As mentioned before, some FTers will be pleased w/ my votes; others won't. Shrug - it is what it is. But I intend to do my best. That's all I can do.

Cheers. Sharon

Shrug - it is what it is. But I intend to do my best. That's all I can do.

Cheers. Sharon

No, it's NOT enough!! :mad:

We INSIST on more!!

I can hardly claim the ability, past or present to "block everything". 1 person, 1 vote.


People vote on name recognition, which pretty much means you will be re-elected forever, no matter how much you block. I mean, who really follows the votes...and out of those, who would check who has voted for a motion or against a motion, and their voting record?

If the new owners decide to keep the TB around, for the next TB elections, perhaps it would be a nice idea to display the voting record of each incumbent on the TB votes during her/his "time in office" (yeah it's still just the TB ;)). That way, people would make a little more informed decisions.

If you don't want moderators representing you, then you have the choice not to vote for them.

I have voted for moderators (e.g., gleff) and non-moderators in the past. While I like kokonutz' proposal, there are other considerations for me personally to take into account, and I would not withhold my vote from someone just because they are a moderator. @:-)

BTW - what the heck are contested elections? To me that sounds like interference w/ votes, bring in folk to count the chads! In both the Prez & VP voting, there was a choice in the first round of voting. Multiple folk running that didn't win doesn't make an election 'contested' - or did I miss something?

Elections for which there is a contest - not where the result is contested, but rather where the election has more candidates than places.

Not sure what the 'commercial' reference is? (Other than that Randy sells ad space ont he blog)



You have a commercial interests that are intrinsically linked to your volunteerism here and the boarding area blog. This proposal would impact those commercial interests was what I was referring to! Sorry for not being more clear! :)

I'm still not getting the mod/TB black helicopter thing. And again - I am NOT a mod. For the record I have not been paid by mods, blah, blah.

And again - for the record - w/ my 1 vote - I will not be voting for the TB members taking a leave of absence from mod duties - or vice versa for that matter. I think both can do both well.



It's not a black helicopter thing. My recent tour of Maui, Molokai and Lanai, now THAT was a black helicopter thing! ^

And it's not a question of whether a person can handle both duties. Of course they can; some TB members have been doing so for more than 8 years, apparently!

It's a matter of requiring that posters' representatives on the TB have the same FT experience that 99% of posters do, rather than the experience of FT that 1% of posters do, during the time they serve on the TB.

If we want to guarantee a "fresh" perspective, why not put a two term limit on Talkboard members? I really respected Dovster when he stepped down.

I was only one vote, but I only voted for one person this time... and she was elected to the Talkboard... so guess my focused vote counted.

In all honestly, I served as a moderator and Talkboard member for a few years... and tried hard to ensure I understand the "normal" user perspective... I hung out in the chat room (when people actually visited), sent messages to members, talked to members when travelling... all to get a sense of what they wanted.

Believe it or not, I am a "normal" user when I am outside the forums I moderate... I use the forums like anyone else, report bad posts, ask questions... just like any other member. I appreciate anyone who steps forward... and would not want to limit their volunteerism.

Believe it or not, I am a "normal" user when I am outside the forums I moderate... I use the forums like anyone else, report bad posts, ask questions... just like any other member. I appreciate anyone who steps forward... and would not want to limit their volunteerism.
With respect, you may THINK you are a 'normal' user outside of the forums you moderate but you still have the perspective of a moderator somewhere in your head, as well as access to and use of the private moderator forums, thus altering your perspective of FT.

I too appreciate anyone who steps forward to volunteer. Some folks step forward to volunteer as moderators but can't ever be accepted as moderators for what are probably good (if mysterious) reasons. This creates no undue burden on FT nor on the volunteer whose services are not desired.

Similarly, I see no terrible burden on FT or on an individual volunteer from asking TB representatives to take a leave of absence from moderator duties while they serve in that function for good reason: so that they may do that job with only one perspective in mind; that of the regular joe poster.

If we want to guarantee a "fresh" perspective, why not put a two term limit on Talkboard members? I really respected Dovster when he stepped down.

This is also a good idea.

This is also a good idea.

I agree.

This is also a good idea.

Another idea with no chance of passing.

This is also a good idea. It harkens back to my idea of limiting ALL volunteers elected or appointed to term limits. It was not well received.....

It harkens back to my idea of limiting ALL volunteers elected or appointed to term limits. It was not well received.....

Well, duh. It's the volunteers who'd be limited who have no interest, of course.

Another idea with no chance of passing.

Don't be so sure. I have been canvassing TB members informally on this issue for a few weeks now and am pretty confident that we can negotiate this motion through.

Koko is wrong on a lot of things (mostly college football related) but here he gets it.

If we want to guarantee a "fresh" perspective, why not put a two term limit on Talkboard members? I really respected Dovster when he stepped down.

Hey, Dovey's not the ONLY TB member who self-limited terms. There's Jenbel too! And some koko dude!

But start your own freakin' thread. This one is about requiring that TB members, while they serve, view FT from the same perspective as regular joe posters rather than from the perspective of moderators! @:-)

Thought I'd add in some facts for you regarding how Moderators participate on FlyerTalk, just in case it is relevant. The facts might indicate that a majority and in most cases, a super-majority of their time is spent as regular members. While I can appreciate an analogy of the flight attendant as a passenger, it is unlikely that the flight attendant spends an average of only 15% of their total airplane time being a flight attendant (the rest being a passenger not counting deadheading which is transportation time).

Anyway, I took a casual look at some Moderators who have posted to this thread and compiled some stats as any member could do. So, here' the time each of these Moderators spend in their own forums and the percentage they spend as regular members posting in other forums:
Spiff: 1% in CC; 99% as a regular member posting.
Cholula: .65% in Alaska, 9.2% in CBuzz!, 19.5% in OMNI, 7.1% in TS/S; 64% as a regular member posting.
obscure2k: 18% in Delta, 3.2% in Luxury, 9.1% in TBuzz!; 70% as a regular member posting.
Markie: 7.8% in Hyatt, 3.8% in Star; 88% as a regular member posting.
jackal: 34.5% in Alaska, 65% as a regular member posting.
wharvey: 10.5% in CC, 4% in TB Topics, 85% as a regular member posting.
Jenbel: 4% in CBuzz!, 1% in Virgin; 95% as a regular member posting.

As for seeing FlyerTalk VERY differently than posters, it might seem that they actually are more regular posters than Moderators, which is something I've always known but thought sharing the facts might help.

As for "better to see fewer titles under more people's names", I'll confess that this is actually a thought-out method for FlyerTalk. I've learned that through research from other leading Web sites and our own experiences here on FlyerTalk that this is not a best practice to have more people with fewer titles as more people means a greater challenge for consistency in the Moderator practices and we've actually been working with the group to adopt awareness and other practices to try and get better at consistency between forums just with the Moderators we have. Again, more "volunteers" in any activity or situation undoubtably leads to greater inconsistency. One thing you'll notice is that often when you see a volunteer with multiple titles, it's related to their available time, the fact that they often don't play a major role in most of the other forums and are there often for time zone coverage, etc.

Anyway, hope this adds some additional light on your topic and might even make sense. As to the time volunteers spend as regular posters, facts are, they are more regular posters than they are Moderators and I think if you were to look at how they post in other forums when they are regular posters, you really could not tell any difference than the same post from another member who was not a Moderator. Wonderful thing this research stuff.

While moderators are also posters, moderators experience FT in a VERY different way than posters

- It's grand to see so many titles under a single person's name, but it would be better to see fewer titles under more people's names.

I think this proposal would re-invigorate the TB and make to more focused on the customer/poster experience.

All I can say to that is that I'm glad my OMNI posts were not broken out! :o :D

Oh yes, and insert your own Virgin joke here ;)

Thanks for the stat.'s Randy as they do in fact highlight what many including myself have been saying all along, which is Mod.'s are members first and foremost.

FWIW this overt vendetta against Mod.'s puzzles me frankly but that's just MHO.

Speaking as a regular user first and moderator second, I do not see the need for the TB members to back away from moderator duties. I do support TB term limits though.

Thought I'd add in some facts for you regarding how Moderators participate on FlyerTalk, just in case it is relevant. The facts might indicate that a majority and in most cases, a super-majority of their time is spent as regular members. While I can appreciate an analogy of the flight attendant as a passenger, it is unlikely that the flight attendant spends an average of only 15% of their total airplane time being a flight attendant (the rest being a passenger not counting deadheading which is transportation time).

Anyway, I took a casual look at some Moderators who have posted to this thread and compiled some stats as any member could do. So, here' the time each of these Moderators spend in their own forums and the percentage they spend as regular members posting in other forums:
Spiff: 1% in CC; 99% as a regular member posting.
Cholula: .65% in Alaska, 9.2% in CBuzz!, 19.5% in OMNI, 7.1% in TS/S; 64% as a regular member posting.
obscure2k: 18% in Delta, 3.2% in Luxury, 9.1% in TBuzz!; 70% as a regular member posting.
Markie: 7.8% in Hyatt, 3.8% in Star; 88% as a regular member posting.
jackal: 34.5% in Alaska, 65% as a regular member posting.
wharvey: 10.5% in CC, 4% in TB Topics, 85% as a regular member posting.
Jenbel: 4% in CBuzz!, 1% in Virgin; 95% as a regular member posting.

As for seeing FlyerTalk VERY differently than posters, it might seem that they actually are more regular posters than Moderators, which is something I've always known but thought sharing the facts might help.

As for "better to see fewer titles under more people's names", I'll confess that this is actually a thought-out method for FlyerTalk. I've learned that through research from other leading Web sites and our own experiences here on FlyerTalk that this is not a best practice to have more people with fewer titles as more people means a greater challenge for consistency in the Moderator practices and we've actually been working with the group to adopt awareness and other practices to try and get better at consistency between forums just with the Moderators we have. Again, more "volunteers" in any activity or situation undoubtably leads to greater inconsistency. One thing you'll notice is that often when you see a volunteer with multiple titles, it's related to their available time, the fact that they often don't play a major role in most of the other forums and are there often for time zone coverage, etc.

Anyway, hope this adds some additional light on your topic and might even make sense. As to the time volunteers spend as regular posters, facts are, they are more regular posters than they are Moderators and I think if you were to look at how they post in other forums when they are regular posters, you really could not tell any difference than the same post from another member who was not a Moderator. Wonderful thing this research stuff.

Thanks for the 411, Randy.

Question: when you say 'time spent' in a forum, do you mean actual time spent there (does FT track this!?) or do you mean number of posts?

Because, although I've never been a moderator so cant say for certain, I assume that moderators spend a lot of their time on admin duties (cleaning up spam, merging threads, etc) in a forum rather than posting there.

Just like a FA may spend very little time as a revenue customer on his or her own airline even though he or she spend a LOT of time there, it makes sense to me that a moderator would be less of a poster on a forum he or she moderates despite the fact that he or she spends a LOT of time there.

I'm curious too, will you retain moderator 'status' in your retirement? I wonder if your thoughts on this matter might change if you experience FT as only a regular joe poster (although clearly you'll never be a regular joe to those of us who are so indebted to your efforts!) as opposed to as someone with responsibility over FT beyond being a regular old poster. @:-)

Speaking as a regular user first and moderator second, I do not see the need for the TB members to back away from moderator duties. I do support TB term limits though. Ergo, you support having term limits imposed on all volunteers (whether elected or appointed)?

Because, although I've never been a moderator so cant say for certain, I assume that moderators spend a lot of their time on admin duties (cleaning up spam, merging threads, etc) in a forum rather than posting there.

I spend, on average, maybe five minutes per week on "admin duties."

Assuming I spend three hours a day on FlyerTalk (which is a pretty conservative guess for me) and that I spend roughly 35% of my time in the Alaska forum, the other 98.87% of the time I spend in the Alaska Airlines forum is actually reading and responding to normal threads and conversation. Do a search of my posts in the Alaska Airlines forum and double-check me.

By extension, 99.6% of my time on FlyerTalk as a whole is spent as a non-moderator.

Now, of course, I can only speak for my [relatively conflict-free] forum. But even when I was helping out with TS/S when it was overwhelmed with posts several weeks ago, I stayed awake most of the night reading all of the fascinating threads and comments...but spent maybe 5 minutes per day (over the course of four days) actually doing anything related to moderation. So, 20 minutes of time out of probably close to 16 hours of reading--still not a huge percentage of time.

Because, although I've never been a moderator so cant say for certain, I assume that moderators spend a lot of their time on admin duties (cleaning up spam, merging threads, etc) in a forum rather than posting there. I think that this perception is rather misguided. Some mods spend more time than others on those duties but I'd be quite surprised to learn that any moderator spends anything close to 10% or more of their time on FT behaving as a moderator rather than as a member. I'd bet that even 5% is a quite high estimate.
I spend, on average, maybe five minutes per week on "admin duties."

Assuming I spend three hours a day on FlyerTalk (which is a pretty conservative guess for me) and that I spend roughly 35% of my time in the Alaska forum, the other 98.87% of the time I spend in the Alaska Airlines forum is actually reading and responding to normal threads and conversation. Do a search of my posts in the Alaska Airlines forum and double-check me.

By extension, 99.6% of my time on FlyerTalk as a whole is spent as a non-moderator.


I spend a few more minutes a week as a mod (apparently the spammers like Travel Technology more than Alaska ;)) but probably not more than 30 minutes in most weeks. And I spend WAY more than 3 hours/day on here. :o

Most of my time is spent in fora I do not moderate. I participate as a member, posting, answering questions and sending RBPs and wondering why they are ignored by the mods for those fora and other "typical" tasks. Do I probably have a different view of FlyerTalk than other members? Absolutely. But it isn't because I'm a moderator.

If I thought that the analogy of legislator and judge made sense with respect to the two groups we're talking about here I'd be much more likely to support the proposal. But it does not IMO.

Ergo, you support having term limits imposed on all volunteers (whether elected or appointed)?
Training a new moderator takes up to two months and is done by another moderator giving up their time to do that training. Training a TB members takes Randy saying 'You've won' and opening up the private forum.

If someone can see a real concrete benefit which outweighs the increased workload which you are asking the mods to take on in increased training, increased throughput of mods which would reduce consistency across FT as well as decreasing experience and group memory of the mod group (having mods who have been mods for 8+ years is actually extremely valuable in some circumstances) then by all means feel free to make the argument. But I haven't seen anything yet argued which would suggest that there is a benefit out there which outweighs the costs of the idea.

Training a new moderator takes up to two months and is done by another moderator giving up their time to do that training.

Just trying to understand, it takes up to two months to train someone to do something he/she (according to Randy) spends like 0.01241240125125 % of her/his time on? ;)

Just trying to understand, it takes up to two months to train someone to do something he/she (according to Randy) spends like 0.01241240125125 % of her/his time on? ;)
Trust me--it only takes 30 seconds to do something that incites a barrage of angry PMs... ;)

This debate is slightly amusing to me, as a 'regular joe'. I note that the TB and moderators are generally among the more thoughtful posters, where ever they are (except Omni of course), partly because I suspect they generally have a higher sense of responsibility than the rest of us. Randy shows statistically that Moderators are very active people generally and that is to the good. The very notion of term limits for moderators seems pointless to me. The most interested and involved people are the very ones we ned to keep active. This is not Congress, after all.

Because there are vast differences in vitriol and harmony between fora (SM or FB, anybody) the experience and dedication of Moderators for difficult fora is far more demanding than for easy ones (say, SPG because of the active role played by Starwood Lurker or AS because they love harmony). Term limits will act to destabilize the difficult fora and have no effect at all on the easy ones, IMHO. This I strongly oppose term limits for Moderators.

On the other hand TB is different. if the electors want term limits they should have them. I imagine Randy might have some handy statistics on voting rates among members. I'll wager there is a direct and strong correlation between posting activity and voting. Thus, I'd infer that term limits for TB would be self defeating anyway, because many of the candidates are already very active. Were there to be a clear problem with longevity I would be quick to change my position. The data for that can probably be found in the private forum.

Personally I appreciate the time all of the Moderators and TB members devote to our community interests. I also see minimal harm from continuity in this context. Were there graft, corruption, junkets or earmarks to be had my view might be different.

Finally, except for the excessive time commitments I see no reason for a Moderators to stop moderating just because of accession to TB.

Just trying to understand, it takes up to two months to train someone to do something he/she (according to Randy) spends like 0.01241240125125 % of her/his time on? ;)
Yes, really, it does.

Time spent on modding does vary. There are weeks where I do very little. And then there are weeks where something might kick off and I can spend 2-3 hours a night doing moderation activity. And of course, the more inexperienced you are, generally the longer it takes to do things.

I think that this perception is rather misguided. Some mods spend more time than others on those duties but I'd be quite surprised to learn that any moderator spends anything close to 10% or more of their time on FT behaving as a moderator rather than as a member. I'd bet that even 5% is a quite high estimate.


I spend a few more minutes a week as a mod (apparently the spammers like Travel Technology more than Alaska ;)) but probably not more than 30 minutes in most weeks. And I spend WAY more than 3 hours/day on here. :o

Most of my time is spent in fora I do not moderate. I participate as a member, posting, answering questions and sending RBPs and wondering why they are ignored by the mods for those fora and other "typical" tasks. Do I probably have a different view of FlyerTalk than other members? Absolutely. But it isn't because I'm a moderator.

If I thought that the analogy of legislator and judge made sense with respect to the two groups we're talking about here I'd be much more likely to support the proposal. But it does not IMO.

I submit that every moment you spend reading a forum you moderate (either permanently or temporarily) you are 'moderating.' Because you are looking at the posts to learn and teach and entertain and be entertained, sure. But you are also actively looking for TOS violations.

Just like a cop might enjoy a drive on a Saturday afternoon, if he's on duty and driving on Saturday afternoon he's still on the lookout for crime. And then, even when he's NOT on duty he or she ends up looking for crime anyway. And you sort of cop to this (pun intended!) by saying you RBP a lot and get frustrated when there's no response!

Moderators simply have a different/additional duty/responsibility when they log on to FT than regular posters do. They may be members 'first,' but they are also on duty 24/7 and that creates a different FT experience than you get from coming to FT as a customer rather than an unpaid employee.

The TB is meant to represent the posters' perspective and serve their needs. Not the unpaid employees perspective and needs.

It's telling to me that so many moderators are so strongly opposed to this proposal. Is this thread being discussed in the private moderators forum?

I submit that every moment you spend reading a forum you moderate (either permanently or temporarily) you are 'moderating.' Because you are looking at the posts to learn and teach and entertain and be entertained, sure. But you are also actively looking for TOS violations.

Just like a cop might enjoy a drive on a Saturday afternoon, if he's on duty and driving on Saturday afternoon he's still on the lookout for crime. And then, even when he's NOT on duty he or she ends up looking for crime anyway. And you sort of cop to this (pun intended!) by saying you RBP a lot and get frustrated when there's no response!

Moderators simply have a different/additional duty/responsibility when they log on to FT than regular posters do. They may be members 'first,' but they are also on duty 24/7 and that creates a different FT experience than you get from coming to FT as a customer rather than an unpaid employee.

The TB is meant to represent the posters' perspective and serve their needs. Not the unpaid employees perspective and needs.

It's telling to me that so many moderators are so strongly opposed to this proposal. Is this thread being discussed in the private moderators forum?
Pardon me for any lack of clarity as I respond from my iPhone, but I disagree with your conclusion about how a moderator spends his or her time.

I have not changed my reading or posting habits in my forum (not to mention outside of it) one bit since I became a moderator. Before I became a moderator, I read every post and every thread in the AS forum and posted as many helpful replies as I could.

Now, I still read every post and thread in the AS forum and post as many helpful replies as I can.

And maybe it's because there are so many well-behaved posters in the AS forum, but I don't read every post with my guard up. Heck, half the time, I'll read a post and think absolutely nothing of it only to receive an RBP later from a member bringing up a concern (which I may or may not decide to take action on, but the point is it flew under my radar).

I think there are more members than moderators out there who read as if they're on duty 24/7. They use RBPs more than I ever did! Should they be banned from TalkBoard?

I don't think I do anything more now than I ever did as a member who occasionally RBP'd. The only difference now is I can just quickly do something about it rather than RBP and wait for someone else to.

Just because you have the power to make a citizen's arrest doesn't mean you're wandering the streets looking for someone to report!

As to your last point: no, there has not been any mention of this in the moderator forum. I think most of us just don't see how your arguments make sense, especially as you're basing them on (IMHO) incorrect guesses as to how we think and act.

I guess my perspective is coming from being on some of the busiest forums in FT where moderation appears to take a lot more time and effort than some of the less busy forums.

As to your last point: no, there has not been any mention of this in the moderator forum. I think most of us just don't see how your arguments make sense, especially as you're basing them on (IMHO) incorrect guesses as to how we think and act.
That actually makes sense; you all have a shared perspective of FT.

But really? You don't think it makes sense that representatives of the posters ought to share the same perspective of FT as posters while they serve on the TB? And that active moderators, while certainly posters, simply have a different perspective than other posters because of their role as a moderator?

That a customer focus group about a product should not be made up of employees responsible for that product's quality control every day?

I'm afraid I can't be much more clear.

As a preface to this post I would like to note that I like kokonutz, I have voted for Koko for TB before, and would do so again.

Now the nitty-gritty, from someone who has never been a moderator nor run for TB- and is unlikely to be asked to serve in either capacity:

I generally vote for TB candidates who are or have been moderators. Bearing in mind the adage that 'power corrupts', I find reviewing a candidate's actions while in a position of authority (moderating) to be a likely indicator of how they might behave when elected to TB. While Kokonutz's proposal would not stop a member from being a mod and then giving it up to serve on TB, it would pose another dilemna for me as a voter- If I vote for candidate X because I like the way they moderate, what will the impact be on the forum they will no longer be moderating? I would not have voted for three of the four TB candidates I did in this most recent election had I known that they would cease to be Mods as a result of my vote. Why? The forums are more important to me than TB from a "Joe the FT User" perspective. And given the handful of members who actually do vote (1850 +/-) I would suggest that I am not alone.

That being said, Koko's proposal addresses a perceived harm, but does not establish an actual harm as presented. It is a Rexford Tugwell (The Emerging Constitution) dilemna- we can write the perfect constitution, but can we actually ratify it? TB could probably rewrite every rule to avoid perceived ills, but it will lead to endless debates and a guidelines spanning hundreds of pages...

I believe TB, given what I have seen of it's operations over the past six years (I lurked before I lept), keeps it's own in check when necessary- up to and including removal from TB. And we must keep in mind that the TalkBoard is not congress. The whole FT experience exists at the whim of the "company" that owns it. It could be sold to Google tomorrow- and our 'votes' would have no force or effect in that decision.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it (risk of change paradigm- just for gleff). I fear a change that would turn my favourite forums over to new moderators, and I fear a TB that has no experience working within the framework of FT.

The emotional dynamic runs at full tilt between some of the posters here, and I am certainly not one to throw stones over that topic as I frequently get very upset and walk away from FT for days at a time until I have regained my perspective .(Ok, I lurk- but I don't log in :D ) But in the end, I know we cannot legislate perfect behaviour, nor can we drag those who offend us to the communitybuzz forum for a public flogging. My impression is that this proposal is more of an escalation of interpersonal dynamics than a malignancy that requires new rules to cure.

As we learned from Bill and Ted, "be excellent to each other!"

As one of the "small people" (non-authority FT'ers), that is my take on the proposal.

I guess my perspective is coming from being on some of the busiest forums in FT where moderation appears to take a lot more time and effort than some of the less busy forums.


That actually makes sense; you all have a shared perspective of FT.

But really? You don't think it makes sense that representatives of the posters ought to share the same perspective of FT as posters while they serve on the TB? And that active moderators, while certainly posters, simply have a different perspective than other posters because of their role as a moderator?

That a customer focus group about a product should not be made up of employees responsible for that product's quality control every day?

I'm afraid I can't be much more clear.
On iPhone again, so apologies for brevity--

You're not being unclear; on the contrary, I get where you're coming from perfectly.

I just don't think you're correct! No, I don't think [most] moderators have a vastly different perspective of FT than most members.

You're kind of asking me to prove a negative, but I just don't see how I'm any different now than I was, what, eight months ago before my name was made bold.

As a preface to this post I would like to note that I like kokonutz, I have voted for Koko for TB before, and would do so again.

Now the nitty-gritty, from someone who has never been a moderator nor run for TB- and is unlikely to be asked to serve in either capacity:

I generally vote for TB candidates who are or have been moderators. Bearing in mind the adage that 'power corrupts', I find reviewing a candidate's actions while in a position of authority (moderating) to be a likely indicator of how they might behave when elected to TB. While Kokonutz's proposal would not stop a member from being a mod and then giving it up to serve on TB, it would pose another dilemna for me as a voter- If I vote for candidate X because I like the way they moderate, what will the impact be on the forum they will no longer be moderating? I would not have voted for three of the four TB candidates I did in this most recent election had I known that they would cease to be Mods as a result of my vote. Why? The forums are more important to me than TB from a "Joe the FT User" perspective. And given the handful of members who actually do vote (1850 +/-) I would suggest that I am not alone.

That being said, Koko's proposal addresses a perceived harm, but does not establish an actual harm as presented. It is a Rexford Tugwell (The Emerging Constitution) dilemna- we can write the perfect constitution, but can we actually ratify it? TB could probably rewrite every rule to avoid perceived ills, but it will lead to endless debates and a guidelines spanning hundreds of pages...

I believe TB, given what I have seen of it's operations over the past six years (I lurked before I lept), keeps it's own in check when necessary- up to and including removal from TB. And we must keep in mind that the TalkBoard is not congress. The whole FT experience exists at the whim of the "company" that owns it. It could be sold to Google tomorrow- and our 'votes' would have no force or effect in that decision.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it (risk of change paradigm- just for gleff). I fear a change that would turn my favourite forums over to new moderators, and I fear a TB that has no experience working within the framework of FT.

The emotional dynamic runs at full tilt between some of the posters here, and I am certainly not one to throw stones over that topic as I frequently get very upset and walk away from FT for days at a time until I have regained my perspective .(Ok, I lurk- but I don't log in :D ) But in the end, I know we cannot legislate perfect behaviour, nor can we drag those who offend us to the communitybuzz forum for a public flogging. My impression is that this proposal is more of an escalation of interpersonal dynamics than a malignancy that requires new rules to cure.

As we learned from Bill and Ted, "be excellent to each other!"

As one of the "small people" (non-authority FT'ers), that is my take on the proposal.

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective & so well done/though out/articulated. Very much appreciated. And may we all 'be excellent to each other'.

Cheers. Sharon

As a preface to this post I would like to note that I like kokonutz, I have voted for Koko for TB before, and would do so again.Thanks, dude! :)

Now the nitty-gritty, from someone who has never been a moderator nor run for TB- and is unlikely to be asked to serve in either capacity:

I generally vote for TB candidates who are or have been moderators. Bearing in mind the adage that 'power corrupts', I find reviewing a candidate's actions while in a position of authority (moderating) to be a likely indicator of how they might behave when elected to TB. While Kokonutz's proposal would not stop a member from being a mod and then giving it up to serve on TB, it would pose another dilemna for me as a voter- If I vote for candidate X because I like the way they moderate, what will the impact be on the forum they will no longer be moderating? I would not have voted for three of the four TB candidates I did in this most recent election had I known that they would cease to be Mods as a result of my vote. Why? The forums are more important to me than TB from a "Joe the FT User" perspective. And given the handful of members who actually do vote (1850 +/-) I would suggest that I am not alone.

That being said, Koko's proposal addresses a perceived harm, but does not establish an actual harm as presented. It is a Rexford Tugwell (The Emerging Constitution) dilemna- we can write the perfect constitution, but can we actually ratify it? TB could probably rewrite every rule to avoid perceived ills, but it will lead to endless debates and a guidelines spanning hundreds of pages...

I believe TB, given what I have seen of it's operations over the past six years (I lurked before I lept), keeps it's own in check when necessary- up to and including removal from TB. And we must keep in mind that the TalkBoard is not congress. The whole FT experience exists at the whim of the "company" that owns it. It could be sold to Google tomorrow- and our 'votes' would have no force or effect in that decision.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it (risk of change paradigm- just for gleff). I fear a change that would turn my favourite forums over to new moderators, and I fear a TB that has no experience working within the framework of FT.
Ok, you don't think mixed perspectives have been a problem in the past. I strongly disagree, and I think the UA/CO merger process is just the latest example of TB moderators not worrying about a TB function because the moderator corps already created their own action plan.

But forget the past. Let's look forward.

And the thing is, you get right at the heart of the matter in the bolded bit above. The era of FT being under Randy's benevolent dictatorship is at an end. FT is going fully corporate now. The blurry line between working for 'Randy's community' and working for IB is now a bright line: the mods work for IB.

Frankly if I were a moderator I'd probably be organizing some collective bargaining with the boys at IB, working toward a compensation package of some sort. Now, some would say that such a notion is exactly why I am not allowed to be a moderator, but the fact of the matter is that what was heretofore a benevolent dictatorship divided up into fiefdoms where regional governors kept the peace through noblesse oblige and Randy's oversight is transforming into an corporate sweatshop. Like it or not, things ARE changing.

And through this change it would be comforting to know that the folks on the elected focus group actually represented only the perspective of the posters.

Then again, perhaps IB and Carol will find the TB irrelevant. Maybe IB will professionalize moderation of their own volition. But in the meantime, imho, active moderators already have split perspectives. And that split is only going to widen through the coming change.

The emotional dynamic runs at full tilt between some of the posters here, and I am certainly not one to throw stones over that topic as I frequently get very upset and walk away from FT for days at a time until I have regained my perspective .(Ok, I lurk- but I don't log in :D ) But in the end, I know we cannot legislate perfect behaviour, nor can we drag those who offend us to the communitybuzz forum for a public flogging. My impression is that this proposal is more of an escalation of interpersonal dynamics than a malignancy that requires new rules to cure.This is not personal. Not for me, anyway. I suspect, but will never be able to confirm, that it is personal for some folks who like to have as many titles under their name as possible. We are a community, after all, of people who define ourselves by the various 'status'es we hold.

As for perspective, I believe I may have originally coined (or stolen from somewhere else) the acronym IJAFIBB. Nothing said or done on FT is as important as the LEAST important thing that ever happens in real life. ^

That said, I am a fan of citizen legislators, of untainted opinions and of pure perspectives. I neither gain nor lose anything personally from this proposal. I believe that the entire posting community stands to gain from it though, and that it would stand as a bulwark for my philosophical priorities.

As we learned from Bill and Ted, "be excellent to each other!"

As one of the "small people" (non-authority FT'ers), that is my take on the proposal.

I prefer "The Dude Abides (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYsw0KVRjCM)."

And the Dude abides. :)

As a former TalkBoard member AND a former moderator, I would absolutely 100% support Koko's proposal.

I in no way want to limit how anyone participates in FT or how much time they give to/spend on FlyerTalk. But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially.

As a former TalkBoard member AND a former moderator, I would absolutely 100% support Koko's proposal.

I in no way want to limit how anyone participates in FT or how much time they give to/spend on FlyerTalk. But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially.

Bravo!

Thank you so much for sharing your perspective & so well done/though out/articulated. Very much appreciated. And may we all 'be excellent to each other'.

Cheers. Sharon

Thank you, SkiAdcock. I appreciate your acknowledgement :)
(I knew I was going to like you from the way you handled yourself in the "Come fly to me" thread when one of your posts was grossly misunderstood.)

<snip> But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially.

ME: I read this as an interested outsider, sitting in a roomful of people with security clearances way above my pay grade. Thank you for sharing your perspective! ^



Ok, you don't think mixed perspectives have been a problem in the past. <snip>

ME: From my position as an end-user, I have not taken notice of any ill effect on the product (FT). Caveat: As an outsider, I do not have the same information as you. I can llok at the NW/DL merged threads and be happy with what I got. I don't have that nagging little voice in my head saying "BUt if we had done it this way, it would have been so much better. I logged in, found the new thread, and rolled with it. I am unencumbered by the 'what ifs' that come with the additional knowledge you posess.

<snip>
This is not personal. Not for me, anyway.

ME: I can accept that on face from you, Kokonutz, but some of what has been written in this short thread doesn't seem very friendly- as in "Spiff will just block it".
<snip>
That said, I am a fan of citizen legislators, of untainted opinions and of pure perspectives. I neither gain nor lose anything personally from this proposal. I believe that the entire posting community stands to gain from it though, and that it would stand as a bulwark for my philosophical priorities.

ME: Here is a well articulated paragraph that I think should have been in your original post (my hindsight is pretty good, eh?). But I still have not read an explanation of why this proposal is necessary. I have not seen anything in the proposal itself that establishes a harm that this proposal will cure. You wrote the OP to include phrasing such as "Not that they DO, but they COULD" which indicates this proposal does not have a problem to address yet, making this proposal pre-emptory. I can support a prophylactic measure, but only when a need to do so has first been established. You may well be able to establish this need, but I suggest that you have not yet done so. I realize that it is difficult to cite examples without running afoul of the forum rules, but a clever sophist should be able to find a way :D



Obviously my support or oversion to this proposal really doesn't mean much one way or another. But in recognition of a point Kokonutz makes, I have a different perspective from most (if not all) of the other posters in this thread in that I have never been anything at FT other than a registered user. My post count is artificially inflated from the "come fly to me" thread. I had 246 posts until then, and likely only 20-30 that were of any value to anyone of those. (Explaining how credit card processing works, what an expedia booked room is from the hotel perspective, a few MR deals.)

In summary, I shared my opinion not only because I like to hear myself talk, but because I wanted to share my unique perspective with the board and interested FT'ers. My position, at this point in time and based on the information available to me at this moment, is that my experience would be diminished if I had to choose between Cholula moderating the AS forum or serving on TB. I would not put my favourite mods on TB. And that means I may well end up voting for less-qualified, or perhaps even unqualified candidates for TB. And as a California voter that just faced that dilemna in November, I do not want to have to make that kind of choice here.

For what amounts to volunteer army at TB, I am exceedingly pleased with most aspects of what I see as "Joe the average user". But I have an open mind, and could be made to see value in this proposal if somebody would explain to me how I would benefit if this change were made.

Cheers!

As a former TalkBoard member AND a former moderator, I would absolutely 100% support Koko's proposal.

I in no way want to limit how anyone participates in FT or how much time they give to/spend on FlyerTalk. But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially. Yes, Bravo!^

As a former TalkBoard member AND a former moderator, I would absolutely 100% support Koko's proposal.

I in no way want to limit how anyone participates in FT or how much time they give to/spend on FlyerTalk. But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially.


Bravo Four.

I served with techgirl during my 2 year elected term on Talkboard, and Jen and I seldom voted the same way on any motion, so there is no mutual back-slapping going on here - as the voting records will clearly show. :)

A brave and honest post, and a most telling one, carrying far more weight than most on this thread IMHO, to any savvy readers.

As Koko says "the times they are a changin" with FT and IB and Randy et al.

I agree with him the Mod group should communally hit up whomever is making the mega bucks from all the ads here, for some recompense for their time and input, and if that comes to pass, there really must be separation of powers.

A year back this idea would be a total non-starter, but in 2011 .. who really knows?

Glen

[SIZE="4"]
As Koko says "the times they are a changin" with FT and IB and Randy et al.


They sure are.

In addition to requiring TB members to take a leave of absence from FT moderation, I think TB members should take a leave of absence from MilePoint leadership roles. MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff acknowledged this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on MilePoint.

I think that was the right thing to do and should be made part of the TB Guidelines.

Maybe I should have started a separate thread as this is a related but different issue.

They sure are.

In addition to requiring TB members to take a leave of absence from FT moderation, I think TB members should take a leave of absence from MilePoint leadership roles. MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff acknowledged this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on MilePoint.

I think that was the right thing to do and should be made part of the TB Guidelines.

Maybe I should have started a separate thread as this is a related but different issue.

I think you should have started a separate thread.

I think you should have started a separate thread.

lol, ok, I will. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1198403-proposed-amendment-tb-guidelines-conflicts-interest.html) ;)

I have complete and absolute support for kokonutz's proposal, and with his permission, would like to introduce it as a motion to TalkBoard once it has run its course of discussion here.AS am I ^

That the membership have elected Moderators year after year tends to suggest that fewer of the membership see this an a real issue, that do some people here.

As TB motions can only be made by TB members, unless you can obtain traction from a couple of the current members this won't get to First Base. However, elections are due in a few months and this could certainly be a platform for anyone running for TB.

That the membership have elected Moderators year after year tends to suggest that fewer of the membership see this an a real issue, that do some people here.

How much of that is due to the fact that censoring discussion of moderation prevents the membership at large from becoming aware of the conflicts that occur on a regular basis?

How much of that is due to the fact that censoring discussion of moderation prevents the membership at large from becoming aware of the conflicts that occur on a regular basis?

Not sure, but I am afraid that since your regretted departure from TB there is no one championing the idea of term limits, and so we might well see the position remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

Not sure, but I am afraid that since your regretted departure from TB there is no one championing the idea of term limits, and so we might well see the position remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

Term limits & mods being elected to TB by FTers are 2 separate issues.

Speaking only for myself I'm supportive of term limits ala, serve 2 terms, take 1-2 years off, like professional assns I belong to do, and which I mentioned in the term limits thread in this forum that koko started. I do not support the if you've served it means you can never serve again. Also doesn't mean the topic won't be discussed & voted on this year, btw. There's plenty of time, & even B747 when he was on TB, said he'd bring it up later in the year.

And WRT to mods being TB members, I don't have a problem w/ it. I'm not a moderator & still feel that way. I've never subscribed to the black helicopter thing re: mods.

Cheers.

even B747 when he was on TB, said he'd bring it up later in the year.

And now of course B747 is no longer on TB. Conspiracy theory anyone? :p

And now of course B747 is no longer on TB. Conspiracy theory anyone? :p

You resigned from TB. There is no conspiracy theory. :p

Cheers.

You resigned from TB. There is no conspiracy theory. :p

Cheers.

As there never was any sort of resignation note or announcement from B747-437B in the public forum, I don't believe he nor anyone else has publicly stated the reasons that he is no longer on TB. I found the circumstances very curious myself.

As there never was any sort of resignation note or announcement from B747-437B in the public forum, I don't believe he nor anyone else has publicly stated the reasons that he is no longer on TB. I found the circumstances very curious myself.

There are only 2 reasons to no longer be a TB member - resignation or for cause.

Resignation can be for a variety of reasons: business, personal, or conflict of interest, etc. That's totally fine. We're all volunteers.

For cause requires a lot more & it's publicly posted (see below). That doesn't apply to B747.

E. Resignation/Termination
i. A vacancy in the TalkBoard shall be declared if a member:
a. Resigns
b. Is removed by the FlyerTalk Host for any reason including a recommendation by the TalkBoard to do so under these guidelines.
ii. The vacancy will be filled using the process proscribed by these guidelines.
F. Motions for Censure and Removal
i. Any voting TalkBoard member may make a motion for the censure or for a recommendation for removal of another TalkBoard member or officer. Censure or removal of an elected TalkBoard member is a grave matter and should only be employed in severe circumstances. It should never be employed based on a disagreement of policy, personality or style.
ii. A motion to censure or remove shall include the valid grounds for censure or removal as allowed by these guidelines.
iii. Should such a motion receive a second the President shall initiate a sticky poll to allow TalkBoard members to vote on the matter, which shall take place by secret ballot.
iv. A 2/3 majority of TalkBoard members shall be required for approval of such a motion.
v. In the event of the passage of a motion to censure or remove, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary shall post the motion along with the results of the censure or removal vote in the Town Hall forum along with a statement by the TalkBoard member should he or she desire to include one and then ask the TalkBoard forums moderator to lock that thread 'per TalkBoard guidelines.' Should the motion fail there is to be no public notice of the motion whatsoever.
vi. In the event of the passage of a motion to remove, the President (or the Vice President/Secretary if the motion involves the President) shall submit a request for removal and replacement of said member to the FlyerTalk Host for consideration.
vii. Grounds for censure or removal of a TalkBoard member:
a. Fails to participate in three consecutive discussions on pending motions without prior notice, where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
b. Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
c. Has been permanently removed from the rolls of active, registered members of the FlyerTalk community
d. Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TalkBoard duties
e. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of the FlyerTalk member Terms of Service (TOS)
f. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines
g. Abuses the censure and removal process
viii. As with any motion approved by the TalkBoard, in all cases the FlyerTalk Host makes the final determination whether to act on the TalkBoard recommendation to remove a TalkBoard member or not.

Cheers.

I don't believe he nor anyone else has publicly stated the reasons that he is no longer on TB.

Correct, which is why I find SkiAdcock's certainty about her position to be quite puzzling. Ah well, conspiracy theories are a good thing in moderation! :)

As there never was any sort of resignation note or announcement from B747-437B in the public forum, I don't believe he nor anyone else has publicly stated the reasons that he is no longer on TB. I found the circumstances very curious myself.

You mean no blame has been apportioned to the vast Mod. conspiracy? Colour me surprised.

As there never was any sort of resignation note or announcement from B747-437B in the public forum, I don't believe he nor anyone else has publicly stated the reasons that he is no longer on TB. I found the circumstances very curious myself.
You mean something like this?

While I am naturally disappointed at not being able to complete the term that I was elected to serve,...

But you are correct, Smaug. He hasn't responded to nor addressed any of the follow-up questions in the public TB Topics forum. While gleff made a very public announcement for his resignation (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1180276-resignation.html), B747-437B chose and still is quite silent about his. Not sure why the silence nor who's hiding what. I believe he's still actively posting in TB Topics Forum. ;)

For cause requires a lot more & it's publicly posted (see below). That doesn't apply to B747.

E. Resignation/Termination
i. A vacancy in the TalkBoard shall be declared if a member:
a. Resigns
b. Is removed by the FlyerTalk Host for any reason including a recommendation by the TalkBoard to do so under these guidelines.
ii. The vacancy will be filled using the process proscribed by these guidelines.
F. Motions for Censure and Removal
i. Any voting TalkBoard member may make a motion for the censure or for a recommendation for removal of another TalkBoard member or officer. Censure or removal of an elected TalkBoard member is a grave matter and should only be employed in severe circumstances. It should never be employed based on a disagreement of policy, personality or style.
ii. A motion to censure or remove shall include the valid grounds for censure or removal as allowed by these guidelines.
iii. Should such a motion receive a second the President shall initiate a sticky poll to allow TalkBoard members to vote on the matter, which shall take place by secret ballot.
iv. A 2/3 majority of TalkBoard members shall be required for approval of such a motion.
v. In the event of the passage of a motion to censure or remove, the TalkBoard Vice President/Secretary shall post the motion along with the results of the censure or removal vote in the Town Hall forum along with a statement by the TalkBoard member should he or she desire to include one and then ask the TalkBoard forums moderator to lock that thread 'per TalkBoard guidelines.' Should the motion fail there is to be no public notice of the motion whatsoever.
vi. In the event of the passage of a motion to remove, the President (or the Vice President/Secretary if the motion involves the President) shall submit a request for removal and replacement of said member to the FlyerTalk Host for consideration.
vii. Grounds for censure or removal of a TalkBoard member:
a. Fails to participate in three consecutive discussions on pending motions without prior notice, where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
b. Misses three consecutive calls to vote without prior notice where prior notice constitutes a post posted in the thread kept for that purpose in the private TalkBoard forum
c. Has been permanently removed from the rolls of active, registered members of the FlyerTalk community
d. Demonstrates by his/her actions that he/she is not able to actively participate in the TalkBoard duties
e. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of the FlyerTalk member Terms of Service (TOS)
f. Acts in willful and gross serious, repeated violation of these guidelines
g. Abuses the censure and removal process
viii. As with any motion approved by the TalkBoard, in all cases the FlyerTalk Host makes the final determination whether to act on the TalkBoard recommendation to remove a TalkBoard member or not.
Sharon,

Thanks for digging up the relevant section about termination and resignation in TB Guidelines. ^

It's B747's choice to publicly post or not re: why he resigned. There is no requirement to do so. The listing of the guidelines is to show what goes into the removal of someone from TB, which does not apply to B747.

Re: TB members being mods. As I've publicly stated a # of times, I don't have a problem w/ it.

Cheers.

It's B747's choice to publicly post or not re: why he resigned. There is no requirement to do so. The listing of the guidelines is to show what goes into the removal of someone from TB, which does not apply to B747.

As I said to you via PM yesterday and will reiterate here for public view, please don't make assumptions about this situation and attempt to pass them off as facts. The bottom line remains that I am no longer a member of the current TalkBoard and that, yes, I was not "removed" as per the publicly listed guidelines. That does not however constitute prima facie evidence of anything other than itself.

As I said to you via PM yesterday and will reiterate here for public view, please don't make assumptions about this situation and attempt to pass them off as facts. The bottom line remains that I am no longer a member of the current TalkBoard and that, yes, I was not "removed" as per the publicly listed guidelines. That does not however constitute prima facie evidence of anything other than itself.

Well since you've not said why publicly or privately to my knowledge why you resigned, and there is a formal process for removal of someone from TB & that didn't occur w/ you, it's not unreasonable to assume the resignation was voluntary & nothing nefarious occurred ;). But your resignation isn't actually the topic of this thread :p :D

Cheers.

Well since you've not said why publicly or privately to my knowledge why you resigned, and there is a formal process for removal of someone from TB & that didn't occur w/ you, it's not unreasonable to assume the resignation was voluntary & nothing nefarious occurred ;).

Indeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_excluded_middle).

Let's move on. It is entirely B747-437B's prerogative to not comment on his prior activities. There is no reason to continue questioning him on this subject.

If I remember correctly, the thread topic is: "Proposed amend TB guidelines: TB members take leave of absence from moderator duty"

Still believe that this is a good initiative and is but one of the reforms that is needed. Still too much concentration of volunteer positions in too few hands!

Still believe that this is a good initiative and is but one of the reforms that is needed. Still too much concentration of volunteer positions in too few hands!

Still believe then you should run for TB.

Still believe then you should run for TB. Thanks for your opinion, don't often read that ;). Owing to the success of your TB run seems to say that only those anointed few get elected and it would be best that the above proposition to take place! Did you know that there are a few volunteers with no less than 5 positions....

Thanks for your opinion, don't often read that ;). Owing to the success of your TB run seems to say that only those anointed few get elected and it would be best that the above proposition to take place! Did you know that there are a few volunteers with no less than 5 positions....

Instead of making personal commentary on tcook052's suggestion, perhaps you should consider running for TB. You certainly seem to have a platform and an agenda; why not see how many others are interested in supporting said platform and agenda?

Still believe that this is a good initiative and is but one of the reforms that is needed. Still too much concentration of volunteer positions in too few hands!

I am sure you aware that the appointment of Moderators is with the Community Director, to whom you ought to complain if you feel she is not appointing fairly.

Election of TB members is for the membership to elect.

As Spiff says, I'd stand if you wish to push this further, although I am not sure how much TB can answer your concerns.

I am sure you aware that the appointment of Moderators is with the Community Director, to whom you ought to complain if you feel she is not appointing fairly.

Election of TB members is for the membership to elect.

As Spiff says, I'd stand if you wish to push this further, although I am not sure how much TB can answer your concerns.

TB could certainly set criteria for membership on the TB, no?

TB could certainly set criteria for membership on the TB, no?

Or keep the existing criteria. :)

Or keep the existing criteria. :)

My only point is that this isn't the "wrong" place for the poster to make this suggestion, even though such a suggestion has a smaller chance of passing than pigs falling from the sky.

My only point is that this isn't the "wrong" place for the poster to make this suggestion, even though such a suggestion has a smaller chance of passing than pigs falling from the sky.

It's certainly not the "wrong" place for a suggestion. However, making the same suggestion repeatedly and making personal observations of others' TB campaigns might be better replaced with an actual campaign for TB by said person making the suggestion.

My only point is that this isn't the "wrong" place for the poster to make this suggestion, even though such a suggestion has a smaller chance of passing than pigs falling from the sky. I also assumed that this wasn't the wrong place to bring this up !

Thanks for your opinion, don't often read that ;).

It's a shame. I have lots.

You really should consider a run for TB to advance your obvious agenda. It's easy to shrug and blame some vast conspiracy for things not changing rather than working to affect those changes.

TB could certainly set criteria for membership on the TB, no?

I wonder about that: Can the current TB really dictate who is allowed to serve on future TBs? That seems like a decision to be reserved to the site owners. Otherwise there is at least the theoretical possibility of ending up with a Politburo.

It also occurred to me today that if this proposal were adopted and the membership at large found it to be a bad idea, they would have great difficulty electing six non-moderators willing to risk their seats by reversing it. I am wary of irreversible experiments like this.

That said, I do appreciate the value of having people who are not overloaded with other commitments serve on the TB. I also realize that some of the TB's best work has been done by non-moderators like kokonutz, and now SkiAdcock. It's just that I don't see being a moderator as a conflict in any way other than the overload factor.

It's certainly not the "wrong" place for a suggestion. However, making the same suggestion repeatedly and making personal observations of others' TB campaigns might be better replaced with an actual campaign for TB by said person making the suggestion. When the time comes I will recall your position and vote accordingly, thanks in advance!

When the time comes I will recall your position and vote accordingly, thanks in advance!

Outstanding. ^

B747-437B,

Thanks for your service to the community. ^

I was on the original TalkBoard, and can tell you that this volunteer job is difficult, time consuming, interesting, and exhausting, and thankless.

If anyone reading wants to buy me a drink, I'll gladly spill the details (as long as you have an afternoon to spare). :p ;)

dh

This proposal came up in a recent thread and so I thought I would bring this thread back up in its own forum.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

No thanks. If members want to be represented by moderators, then that should be their prerogative, not a subset of TalkBoard's.

This proposal came up in a recent thread and so I thought I would bring this thread back up in its own forum.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

Me too.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

I would disagree as it's not something I ever thought TB should be legislating.

There was a debate during the recent TB election over whether all members including those who may not have the post count to access OMNI & CC should be able to run for TB and most if not all felt they should. By the same token it seems hypocritical to then turn around and limit others from running for TB because of current volunteer roles on FT. If becoming a TB member is open to all then it should mean all, not almost all.

That is merely MHO.

This proposal came up in a recent thread and so I thought I would bring this thread back up in its own forum.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

Me too.

Me too ^ So happy to have some fresh perspectives on TB.

Me too ^ So happy to have some fresh perspectives on TB.

If I was a moderator, I'd gladly give up that duty for a term on TB. You can always go back to moderating after completing the TB term. What's the big deal, really? It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to be mods or anything.

If I was a moderator, I'd gladly give up that duty for a term on TB. You can always go back to moderating after completing the TB term. What's the big deal, really? It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to be mods or anything.

I think asking moderators to take a leave of absence to serve on TalkBoard is worth consideration. This gives others a chance to serve FT in some shape, as I'm sure there is a long list of those wanting to serve as moderators.

If I was a moderator, I'd gladly give up that duty for a term on TB. You can always go back to moderating after completing the TB term. What's the big deal, really? It's not like there's a shortage of people willing to be mods or anything.

Good for you.

However, that's for individual moderators and the Community Director to decide. Not a subset of TalkBoard.

I happen to agree that moderators should not be members of TalkBoard and vice-versa but that does not mean that a moderator should be prohibited from running for TalkBoard nor that a member of TalkBoard should be prohibited from being a moderator but to me, one serving in both capacities on its face (and no offense intended :)), can give an appearance of a conflict of interest as they serve on both in an enforcement capacity and in an overseeing/governing body as they are privy to information from both bodies and simply put, it doesn't look good. So if a moderator is to run for TalkBoard or a TalkBoard member is to become a moderator, then they should take a leave from the other duty for the length of their new duty.

Good for you.

However, that's for individual moderators and the Community Director to decide. Not a subset of TalkBoard.

A subset? A subset could be anywhere from 0 to 9 members. The only way we find out how big that subset is will be to put this together as a proposal and put it to a vote.

I'm guessing that will happen at some point.

Carol is free to do what she likes with any recommendation that comes out of the process, as always.

A subset? The only way we find out how big that subset is will be to put this to a vote.

I'm guessing that will happen at some point.

Every set is a subset of itself. ;)

I would disagree as it's not something I ever thought TB should be legislating.

There was a debate during the recent TB election over whether all members including those who may not have the post count to access OMNI & CC should be able to run for TB and most if not all felt they should. By the same token it seems hypocritical to then turn around and limit others from running for TB because of current volunteer roles on FT. If becoming a TB member is open to all then it should mean all, not almost all. That is merely MHO.

Agree 100%, and bolding/underlining mine.

And to quote myself from earlier in the thread:

"I'm still not getting the mod/TB black helicopter thing. And again - I am NOT a mod. For the record I have not been paid by mods, blah, blah.

And again - for the record - w/ my 1 vote - I will not be voting for the TB members taking a leave of absence from mod duties - or vice versa for that matter. I think both can do both well."

Cheers.

What an absurd notion. TB members should not undertake a moderator role? What next, TB members should relinquish their participation in competing travel IBBs, websites, blogs? What is the view of bathing on Tuesdays?

I'm not a mod nor have I ever run for TB, but add me to the list of those who think this is trying to solve a non-existent problem. I appreciate there there is new blood on TB, but I really don't think we need to try to emulate the board of directors for a retirement condo complex, making rules about everything under the sun.

I'm not a mod nor have I ever run for TB, but add me to the list of those who think this is trying to solve a non-existent problem. I appreciate there there is new blood on TB, but I really don't think we need to try to emulate the board of directors for a retirement condo complex, making rules about everything under the sun.

Thank you. I agree. ^ I really don't see a problem. I can think of no moderators for whom serving as a TB member would, in any way, constitute a conflict of interest. If a TB Member were asked by our Community Director to serve as a Moderator, I feel that the TB member should be able to make that decision based on his/her own opinions and not a decision which had been legislated/mandated by the TalkBoard.

Every set is a subset of itself. ;)

Note to self:

Don't argue with a rocket scientist. :)

This proposal came up in a recent thread and so I thought I would bring this thread back up in its own forum.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

So, without straining myself to read through the history - in a nutshell, is it primarily a "sitting in the congress and on the judiciary at the same time" sort of concept?

This proposal came up in a recent thread and so I thought I would bring this thread back up in its own forum.

I still find it an outstanding idea.

I still find it one of the worst ideas that ever pop up in TB Topics Forum.

ETA:
And again - for the record - w/ my 1 vote - I will not be voting for the TB members taking a leave of absence from mod duties - or vice versa for that matter. I think both can do both well."

Yes, thank you please, if this ever comes up for voting again.

This is the kind of TBers that I vote for, someone who thinks and listens with and within reasons, instead of biases.

Note to self:

Don't argue with a rocket scientist. :)

Or a mathematician.

An infinite number of mathematicians walk into a bar. The first one says to the bartender "Give me beer". The second one says "Give me half a beer". The third says "Give me 1/4 of a beer". The bartender puts two beers on the bar and says "You guys have to learn your limits".

My line of thinking is this:

There are plenty of people who would like to volunteer and give back to FT in someway. And yet a small set of people have 2,3, or more titles under their handles while others wonder why they aren't able to volunteer.

So for me it has nothing to do with a conflict of interest. For me it has to do with opening up opportunities for others who would like to be part of TalkBoard or the TalkTeam. Nothing more. No black helicopters on the horizon.

Is it really that terrible for someone to take two years off from active moderator duty to serve on TB? Is it really awful for someone to serve for 2-4 years and then graciously slide out of the way and let others serve the TB?

So that's where I'm coming from. I know Sharon says that she thinks people can do both jobs well, but why should they when others could step up and take one of those jobs and have the opportunity to give back to FT, too?

My line of thinking is this:

There are plenty of people who would like to volunteer and give back to FT in someway. And yet a small set of people have 2,3, or more titles under their handles while others wonder why they aren't able to volunteer.

So for me it has nothing to do with a conflict of interest. For me it has to do with opening up opportunities for others who would like to be part of TalkBoard or the TalkTeam. Nothing more. No black helicopters on the horizon.

Is it really that terrible for someone to take two years off from active moderator duty to serve on TB? Is it really awful for someone to serve for 2-4 years and then graciously slide out of the way and let others serve the TB?

So that's where I'm coming from. I know Sharon says that she thinks people can do both jobs well, but why should they when others could step up and take one of those jobs and have the opportunity to give back to FT, too?

For me: this. And, too, what I said before: I wish that the TB represented posters, not the management, ie, moderators.

For me: this. And, too, what I said before: I wish that the TB represented posters, not the management, ie, moderators.

Sorry, moderators are members too.

Sorry, moderators are members too.

Maybe one could argue that it's different for a moderator of a busy forum, but in my neck of the woods, I certainly don't feel like anything other than a regular member who occasionally (once every week or two?) gets reminded that he has the ability to do something mundane like edit the title of a thread.

I certainly don't have a different perspective on FlyerTalk because of that rarely-exercised role, so no, I do not support this motion at all.

I could maybe be convinced differently if there were an overlap between the TalkBoard and the moderator team, but there isn't as of now, so that's a red herring.

moderators are members too.
That says it all. ^

Thank you. I agree. ^ I really don't see a problem. I can think of no moderators for whom serving as a TB member would, in any way, constitute a conflict of interest. If a TB Member were asked by our Community Director to serve as a Moderator, I feel that the TB member should be able to make that decision based on his/her own opinions and not a decision which had been legislated/mandated by the TalkBoard.

I'd respond to your post but if I mentioned moderation the moderator here might delete my post @:-)@:-)

Sorry, moderators are members too.

do you mean same but different? regular members cant talk about them or their actions in any capacity @:-)

do you mean same but different? regular members cant talk about them or their actions in any capacity @:-)

Which is absolutely crazy. This lack of transparency is one of FT's most unattractive features.

My line of thinking is this:

There are plenty of people who would like to volunteer and give back to FT in someway. And yet a small set of people have 2,3, or more titles under their handles while others wonder why they aren't able to volunteer.

So for me it has nothing to do with a conflict of interest. For me it has to do with opening up opportunities for others who would like to be part of TalkBoard or the TalkTeam. Nothing more. No black helicopters on the horizon.

Is it really that terrible for someone to take two years off from active moderator duty to serve on TB? Is it really awful for someone to serve for 2-4 years and then graciously slide out of the way and let others serve the TB?

So that's where I'm coming from. I know Sharon says that she thinks people can do both jobs well, but why should they when others could step up and take one of those jobs and have the opportunity to give back to FT, too?
^ There are some who are moderators for a few forums or who are moderators and o TalkBoard, and others who are waiting in line to volunteer as moderators. Why not allow others to also serve?

Having more volunteers than positions to fill is a good problem to have, except that when those who offer to volunteer wait for months or years for an opening, you run the risk of them disengaging from the board or deciding that it's not worth it to even bother trying to volunteer, because they get tired of the wait.

Maybe one could argue that it's different for a moderator of a busy forum, but in my neck of the woods, I certainly don't feel like anything other than a regular member who occasionally (once every week or two?) gets reminded that he has the ability to do something mundane like edit the title of a thread.

I certainly don't have a different perspective on FlyerTalk because of that rarely-exercised role, so no, I do not support this motion at all.

I could maybe be convinced differently if there were an overlap between the TalkBoard and the moderator team, but there isn't as of now, so that's a red herring.

Well said. ^

And, too, what I said before: I wish that the TB represented posters, not the management, ie, moderators.

Well I can't speak for other TB members, but I do feel that I represent FTers, not moderators. It's been well-documented I do my homework when considering items that are brought up for motion, which can include reading TB topics back several years, researching on the forums, listening to input of FTers.

I certainly don't look under someone's handle to see if they have a title (of any kind) when reading input on the thread & say oh golly, they have a mod handle; they're more important. Sure there are a few mod names I recognize from having been on FT a long time. I recognize a # of non-mod handles from having been on as long as well. Shrug.

I've stated publicly before that I don't have a problem w/ a mod being a TB member & vice versa. I think both can do both equally well.

Cheers.

Well I can't speak for other TB members, but I do feel that I represent FTers, not moderators. It's been well-documented I do my homework when considering items that are brought up for motion, which can include reading TB topics back several years, researching on the forums, listening to input of FTers.

I certainly don't look under someone's handle to see if they have a title (of any kind) when reading input on the thread & say oh golly, they have a mod handle; they're more important. Sure there are a few mod names I recognize from having been on FT a long time. I recognize a # of non-mod handles from having been on as long as well. Shrug.

I've stated publicly before that I don't have a problem w/ a mod being a TB member & vice versa. I think both can do both equally well.

Cheers.
Even if they can do both equally well, why not ask them to select one or the other, to allow for increased member participation and engagement? If there are 9 TB members, and 84 moderators, and moderators were required to step down to serve on TB, or vice versa, you would have 93 opportunities for members to serve FT in some leadership capacity, rather than the 89 that currently exist. While the number may vary slightly each year, why not aim to keep that potential number at the maximum level FT needs?

Even if they can do both equally well, why not ask them to select one or the other, to allow for increased member participation and engagement? If there are 9 TB members, and 84 moderators, and moderators were required to step down to serve on TB, or vice versa, you would have 93 opportunities for members to serve FT in some leadership capacity, rather than the 89 that currently exist. While the number may vary slightly each year, why not aim to keep that potential number at the maximum level FT needs?

There's a reason why Senators cannot be Judges, and Presidents cannot be Congresspeople. It's the division of power, and it avoids impropriety, bias, or even the appearance thereof.

It works pretty well.

TB votes mods not allowed
TB votes only mods allowed
mods decide TB not allowed

this kind of thing could create problems

also prevents mods of forums with no co-mods from serving on TB

Sorry, moderators are members too.That they are and no disrespect meant or intended but see the bolded part below. If there is just one member who thinks that there could (e n.b. could be) even the most remote chance of any potential conflict of interest, that is one member too many afaic.

There's a reason why Senators cannot be Judges, and Presidents cannot be Congresspeople. It's the division of power, and it avoids impropriety, bias, or even the appearance thereof.

It works pretty well.Bolding mine: Agreed! ^

What impropriety would that be? :confused: Aren't we all working to make FT a better place? :confused:

What impropriety would that be? :confused: Aren't we all working to make FT a better place? :confused:

If and when the TalkBoard is given real authority over moderation, I will reconsider this measure.

Until that day comes, I agree with Jenbel. There is no potential for impropriety nor the appearance of it.

What impropriety would that be? :confused: Aren't we all working to make FT a better place? :confused:If one governs and also enforces the rules, it simply doesn't look good. Not saying that bad things will happen but it just doesn't look good.

If one governs and also enforces the rules, it simply doesn't look good. Not saying that bad things will happen but it just doesn't look good.
Ah. You must be confused. TB is a members' representative body, not a governance body. It makes recommendations to the CD about things which can improve the community. It's not a parliament, nor does it have rule making capabilities.

So, given that, what impropriety do we think we see? I would have thought it would be helpful to have a range of opinions represent on the members' representative body, to ensure a wide collection of viewpoints is represented.

That they are and no disrespect meant or intended but see the bolded part below. If there is just one member who thinks that there could (e n.b. could be) even the most remote chance of any potential conflict of interest, that is one member too many afaic.

Bolding mine: Agreed! ^

Sorry, but the aforementioned analogy is ridiculous, especially since TalkBoard does not, nor will it (per the Community Director directly) have any purview over moderation or moderators.

If FT members thinks there is a benefit in not allowing a TB member to have some additional FT role(s), then they can choose to vote for candidates who pledge not to hold the other role(s) during a TB term.

My concern from such an approach or some other approaches that increase turnover -- even temporary -- in the "restricted" roles is that consistency of how things operate in a forum will drop.


If one governs and also enforces the rules, it simply doesn't look good.
Then everything -- including every country -- looks "bad", as that kind of approach is routine in government and government organizations.

As an example which is also US based - since TB seem to rely on US based models for examples - the FAA would be a perfect example.

No thanks. If members want to be represented by moderators, then that should be their prerogative, not a subset of TalkBoard's.

Yet, strangely enough, you voted to kick someone off of TB if he got a 30 day suspension. You are not, in the slightest, concerned about who "the members want to be represented by".

IMHO, moderators should, indeed, step down from that position while serving on TB. This, however, should not be made retroactive. A person who is serving as a moderator and is already elected should not be forced to choose between the two.

However, if a non-mod TB member is appointed as a mod, he should have to either delay taking that position until his current TB term is over or else step down from TB.

In future elections, should a mod be elected to TB, he would have to retire as a mod. I would even go further and say that this would not be temporary -- he would be resigning with no guarantee that he will ever get appointed again (although that might happen).

How odd Dovster - can you explain why in relation to suspensions - which someone who is voting may not know about - you are/were happy to argue that the TB members should not be held to a higher standard of behaviour, but the members should be trusted to decide on the basis of incomplete knowledge about when, if and for what they had been suspended, but when it comes to moderators - and we are pretty obvious - you know better than the members who vote for moderators, knowing full well they are moderators?

How odd Dovster - can you explain why in relation to suspensions - which someone who is voting may not know about - you are/were happy to argue that the TB members should not be held to a higher standard of behaviour, but the members should be trusted to decide on the basis of incomplete knowledge about when, if and for what they had been suspended, but when it comes to moderators - and we are pretty obvious - you know better than the members who vote for moderators, knowing full well they are moderators?

If there was better transparency to moderation this would not be an issue. @:-)

Today only those with access to the moderator disciplinary database can know suspension histories and base their votes around that data.

If all posters had access to it we could all take a more informed decision at election time.

If there was better transparency to moderation this would not be an issue. @:-)

Today only those with access to the moderator disciplinary database can know suspension histories and base their votes around that data.

If all posters had access to it we could all take a more informed decision at election time.
you haven't actually answered my question.

Why should those who argued about standards of behaviour for TB members - which IIRC included yourself - on the basis that the voters were better suited to make that decision now argue that actually, the voters, when given perfect knowledge of whether someone is a mod or not, not be trusted to be able to decide if they want a moderator to represent them?

In fact, your edited response makes the question even more important. Voters can make an informed decision about whether they want a moderator to represent them since we don't have secret moderators. Why do you trust the voters to be able to decide about people with long term suspensions - when, as you yourself say, they don't know all the facts, but you don't trust the voters to be able to decide about moderators when they do have all the facts?

This seems a very contrary position, and seems to be more about limiting moderators... again :rolleyes:

How odd Dovster - can you explain why in relation to suspensions - which someone who is voting may not know about - you are/were happy to argue that the TB members should not be held to a higher standard of behaviour

Correct. I feel that TB members should be held to the same standard of contact as any other member. You, apparently, disagree with that.

If Member X is given a suspension, he is not allowed to post on any open forums and I feel that the same should be true for a TB member.

I would, however, allow a TB member to continue to participate in TB -- even during his suspension. (Incidentally, this is not only possible but has been done at least once.)

You keep talking about the wondrous sacrifices that FT volunteers make for the good and greater glory of FlyerTalk. Why should someone be stopped from making these sacrifices simply because he violated the TOS at some point?

Correct. I feel that TB members should be held to the same standard of contact as any other member. You, apparently, disagree with that.

If Member X is given a suspension, he is not allowed to post on any open forums and I feel that the same should be true for a TB member.

I would, however, allow a TB member to continue to participate in TB -- even during his suspension. (Incidentally, this is not only possible but has been done at least once.)

You keep talking about the wondrous sacrifices that FT volunteers make for the good and greater glory of FlyerTalk. Why should someone be stopped from making these sacrifices simply because he violated the TOS at some point?
You've ducked the question though. Why can't you trust the voters to decide if they want a moderator to represent them?

(Where have I talked about wonderous sacrifices? That sounds a lot like rhetorical hyperbole to me. )

You've ducked the question though. Why can't you trust the voters to decide if they want a moderator to represent them?



As we have been repeatedly told, moderators are "first and foremost" members. I certainly do trust the general membership to vote for whatever member it wants. Should that member, however, be elected he should step down from being a moderator.

(Again, I would not make this retroactive and put any current member in a position where he would be forced to give up one of this two positions.)

Not only would I not be restricting members from voting for whatever person they prefer but I would actually be assisting them in doing that. I might want to vote for (simply taking a name at random) Canarsie should he run for TB but feel that I can not, in good conscience, do so because I don't think mods should serve on it. If I knew that Canarsie would no longer be a mod if elected, that would free me to vote for him.

(Come to think of it, I am not just taking a name at random. If Canarsie were not a moderator, I would vote for him very happily.)

There is absolutely nothing unusual in this. The good people of Illinois who voted for Obama as president knew that, by law, if was elected they would be losing him as their senator.

(Where have I talked about wonderous sacrifices? That sounds a lot like rhetorical hyperbole to me. )

I volunteered to become a moderator because FT was a place which I liked spending time on, and I wanted to give back.

Now I'm being told that actually, what I'm doing is not good enough, and it will only be good enough if I have to go through audits, reviews and suspensions. That's getting scarily close to sounding like a job actually - the kind of thing I'd expect to be compensated for. What next, performance targets?

But I don't get paid for any of the grief of doing that. I'm expected to do it all for the love of FT.

I would even go further and say that this would not be temporary -- he would be resigning with no guarantee that he will ever get appointed again (although that might happen).

That's really none of your (or anyone else's besides the CD's) business, nor will it ever be. @:-)

That's really none of your (or anyone else's besides the CD's) business, nor will it ever be. @:-)

Well, as you say in your signature:

You cannot uphold American ideology with un-American actions. It's time for Change.

you haven't actually answered my question.

Why should those who argued about standards of behaviour for TB members - which IIRC included yourself - on the basis that the voters were better suited to make that decision now argue that actually, the voters, when given perfect knowledge of whether someone is a mod or not, not be trusted to be able to decide if they want a moderator to represent them?

In fact, your edited response makes the question even more important. Voters can make an informed decision about whether they want a moderator to represent them since we don't have secret moderators. Why do you trust the voters to be able to decide about people with long term suspensions - when, as you yourself say, they don't know all the facts, but you don't trust the voters to be able to decide about moderators when they do have all the facts?

This seems a very contrary position, and seems to be more about limiting moderators... again :rolleyes:
I've answered this many times. Please take the time to read the OP of this thread. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/15468403-post1.html)

It's because moderators have a different experience of FT than regular posters do. When you log onto FT, you have a duty to perform. Whether you want it to or not, that colors your perception of your time here. It gives you a perspective to FT that I and other posters who are 'just' posters do not have.

It's the same reason I support term limits for moderators. You guys should spend some time as 'just' posters for a while. Walk in our shoes for bit and see how/if that changes your perception of FT.

Speaking from my personal experience, when I left the TB 2 years ago and became a 'regular' poster again I realized had a very different view of FT when I was on the TB than I did after I left. It wasn't something I expected to feel...after all, as a TB member I am only 'special' in the private TB forum where I can vote. But nevertheless, my experience of FT was significantly different!

Being an 'insider' simply gives one a unique perspective. Be an insider too long and you forget what it feels like to be on the outside looking in.

That realization is part of why I ran for TB again. To improve transparency and bring better poster perspective to the day-to-day management of FT.

So that's why I support having TB members take a leave of absence from moderator duty. It's also why I strongly support term limits for TB members and mods. It's why I support more transparency and poster feedback to day-to-day management decisions. Not to weaken or limit moderators. To improve FlyerTalk, to make it more competitive in the now-competitive world of points and miles IBBs, by making it a place where posters feel like they have a real and actual understanding of and say in how this place operates.

Would that make FlyerTalk unique in the world of IBBs? Yes it would.

Uniquely wonderful. ^

Speaking from my personal experience, when I left the TB 2 years ago and became a 'regular' poster again I realized had a very different view of FT when I was on the TB than I did after I left. It wasn't something I expected to feel...after all, as a TB member I am only 'special' in the private TB forum where I can vote. But nevertheless, my experience of FT was significantly different!

This is very interesting. Please describe this in more detail. Is it just the ego-gratifying feeling of fame? You know, like being a star in a small-town theater production? Or is it a feeling of responsibility not to let down your fellow FT members? Give it some thought and let us know. Chances are that I have felt the same things.

One thing I'm sure it's not for me is power. I certainly don't feel significantly more powerful than before I became a moderator. What power I have comes from credibility built over years of calm and reasonable posts. At this point I could take a break from all duties and Carol and any number of others here would still read and carefully consider any suggestion I made. Since I can't take a break from being helpful in general, I don't see a need to take a break from being moderator.

For TB, I agree that giving new people a better chance can improve things. There are many more people wanting to participate than there are available slots, and they can learn everything they need in a week or two. Moderator volunteers are less plentiful and it can take months or years to learn the personalities in a forum. I don't see a need to change mods if the members are happy.

That said, I did request the addition of one mod, then another, to a calm forum (Southwest) that did not urgently need them. If the mods know the forum's personality well enough that they can independently reach the same decision time after time, there's no such thing as too many of them, IMHO. The ideal is if a poster who receives a PM would have no idea which of the forum's moderators sent the message without reading the From field. If the mods have different approaches, this will not work. It's not simply a matter of willingness to help. It's more a question of personality match. You might disagree, but you'd be wrong. :)

For TB, I agree that giving new people a better chance can improve things. There are many more people wanting to participate than there are available slots, and they can learn everything they need in a week or two. Moderator volunteers are less plentiful and it can take months or years to learn the personalities in a forum. I don't see a need to change mods if the members are happy.

That said, I did request the addition of one mod, then another, to a calm forum (Southwest) that did not urgently need them. If the mods know the forum's personality well enough that they can independently reach the same decision time after time, there's no such thing as too many of them, IMHO. The ideal is if a poster who receives a PM would have no idea which of the forum's moderators sent the message without reading the From field. If the mods have different approaches, this will not work. It's not simply a matter of willingness to help. It's more a question of personality match. You might disagree, but you'd be wrong. :)

Why would getting to know the personalities of FT members posting in any forum be an issue if TOS and TOS enforcement consistency across the forums was a given?

Because you are dealing with people. To think you don't need to know the individuals involved is as crazy as thinking that you can manage staff effectively if you know nothing about them. While we are not managing posters per se, we are trying to ensure the forums run smoothly.

And for example if you know your posters you can see an incident brewing into something that will become a TOS breach and step in before it becomes a breach, rather than letting it develop into something where you may have to warn or ban.

This is very interesting. Please describe this in more detail. Is it just the ego-gratifying feeling of fame? You know, like being a star in a small-town theater production? Or is it a feeling of responsibility not to let down your fellow FT members? Give it some thought and let us know. Chances are that I have felt the same things.


It's hard to say. Firstly, I didn't feel obligate to check FT every other day at minimum. So I felt less 'obliged' to it. Which gave me a very different feeling about FT when I did visit.

I also found the user experience to be more frustrating. As a TB member I had the direct ear of the management. As a 'regular' poster I felt like my little niggles were much harder to have addressed even though I saw Carol at a wedding and we talk on FB and stuff.

Mostly I guess I just didn't have a feeling of 'ownership' as strongly as I do when I am serving in an official capacity. I found that I started to think more critically about FT rather than defensively about it.

All I know is that I was surprised just how different it felt. It certainly affects the way I experience FT vs. how I experience it as a regular poster.

Because you are dealing with people. To think you don't need to know the individuals involved is as crazy as thinking that you can manage staff effectively if you know nothing about them. While we are not managing posters per se, we are trying to ensure the forums run smoothly.

Good point and every forum has a different personality because, obviously, it's populated by a different subset of human beings. I use the term "human beings" loosely when referring to the regulars in OMNI/PR but I digress. (Just kidding! :p The OMNI's are much easier to moderate than some other forums I've been involved with.)

Knowing the personalities and posting styles of the regulars is important as neither we nor the members are robots and what might be a TOS violation in the AS forum might be overlooked in TS/S or OMNI. Just depends on The context and the perceived intent of the poster IMO and whether or not s/he has a history of TOS violations or just flew off the handle on a single occasion.

So knowing the members of the forum you moderate as best you can certainly helps to run the forum in a smoother manner IMO.

It's hard to say. Firstly, I didn't feel obligate to check FT every other day at minimum.

:confused:

I've checked FT about once every two hours virtually every day since 2008, long before I was ever in any official capacity. :p

I maintain 100% what I said above:

Maybe one could argue that it's different for a moderator of a busy forum, but in my neck of the woods, I certainly don't feel like anything other than a regular member who occasionally (once every week or two?) gets reminded that he has the ability to do something mundane like edit the title of a thread.

I certainly don't have a different perspective on FlyerTalk because of that rarely-exercised role, so no, I do not support this motion at all.

I could maybe be convinced differently if there were an overlap between the TalkBoard and the moderator team, but there isn't as of now, so that's a red herring.

Ah. You must be confused. TB is a members' representative body, not a governance body. It makes recommendations to the CD about things which can improve the community. It's not a parliament, nor does it have rule making capabilities.

So, given that, what impropriety do we think we see? I would have thought it would be helpful to have a range of opinions represent on the members' representative body, to ensure a wide collection of viewpoints is represented.I'm always confused (and not just as a result of being rear-ended this past January) ;) While true that TB has no rule making capabilities, as you have correctly stated, they make recommendations to the CD on things that they believe to be in the best interest of FT and that is a form of governance-it is up to the CD to accept or reject the recommendations.

That they are and no disrespect meant or intended but see the bolded part below. If there is just one member who thinks that there could (e n.b. could be) even the most remote chance of any potential conflict of interest, that is one member too many afaic.

Bolding mine: Agreed!Sorry, but the aforementioned analogy is ridiculous, especially since TalkBoard does not, nor will it (per the Community Director directly) have any purview over moderation or moderators.A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste and if I may, why so stubborn and simply stuck on referring to "not in the purview"? Sometimes things can change. Not saying that they always do but sometimes it does happen.

If FT members thinks there is a benefit in not allowing a TB member to have some additional FT role(s), then they can choose to vote for candidates who pledge not to hold the other role(s) during a TB term....Exactly correct ^

If one governs and also enforces the rules, it simply doesn't look good.[/quote

Then everything -- including every country -- looks "bad", as that kind of approach is routine in government and government organizations.Bolding mine: Kinda says it all ;)

You've ducked the question though. Why can't you trust the voters to decide if they want a moderator to represent them?

(Where have I talked about wonderous sacrifices? That sounds a lot like rhetorical hyperbole to me. )Bolding mine: Hammer->head of nail ^

Good point and every forum has a different personality because, obviously, it's populated by a different subset of human beings. I use the term "human beings" loosely when referring to the regulars in OMNI/PR but I digress. (Just kidding! :p The OMNI's are much easier to moderate than some other forums I've been involved with.)

Knowing the personalities and posting styles of the regulars is important as neither we nor the members are robots and what might be a TOS violation in the AS forum might be overlooked in TS/S or OMNI. Just depends on The context and the perceived intent of the poster IMO and whether or not s/he has a history of TOS violations or just flew off the handle on a single occasion.

So knowing the members of the forum you moderate as best you can certainly helps to run the forum in a smoother manner IMO.

That seems to speak to TOS and TOS enforcement inconsistency across the forums on FT. Then I'm left to conclude that it is not a given that there is TOS and TOS enforcement consistency across the forums.

Why would getting to know the personalities of FT members posting in any forum be an issue if TOS and TOS enforcement consistency across the forums was a given?

Inconsistency with airlines or airport security don't exactly encourage unanimous/universal kumbaya moments, so I am not sure why it would be any different with anything else on FT. At least when consistency is a given, the issues arising from inconsistency drop.

Please, no jokes about the TSA's consistent inconsistency to keep people on their toes; nor any jokes about TSA mind-reading -- particularly as I don't want to see people "disciplined" for doing who knows what with the TSA.

I think the difference between airlines/airport security and an IBB is that we actually get to know the people we interact with since the interaction is not limited to a 5 minute conversation you are forced to have while doing other things.

It is a little odd that someone should compare a social interaction - like participating on an IBB with what is little more than a business transaction :confused:

I think the difference between airlines/airport security and an IBB is that we actually get to know the people we interact with since the interaction is not limited to a 5 minute conversation you are forced to have while doing other things.

It is a little odd that someone should compare a social interaction - like participating on an IBB with what is little more than a business transaction :confused:

Social interactions include business transactions, not that the division changes a thing when the point is about what consistency and/or lack of consistency yields on FT.

Inconsistency with airlines or airport security don't exactly encourage unanimous/universal kumbaya moments on FT, so I am not sure why it would be any different with anything else on FT.

Treatment should not be the same in a busy forum and a quiet forum. The latter can offer much more leeway, because for one thing problems do not cascade so quickly. Moderators tend to give slack if that increases value to the readers and posters. The Peanut Gallery thread in the Southwest forum is a good example of this. Surely you would not want to ban an ongoing search for incremental improvements for each forum?

Treatment should not be the same in a busy forum and a quiet forum. The latter can offer much more leeway, because for one thing problems do not cascade so quickly. Moderators tend to give slack if that increases value to the readers and posters. The Peanut Gallery thread in the Southwest forum is a good example of this. Surely you would not want to ban an ongoing search for incremental improvements for each forum?

Not sure how a desire for greater consistency has to be traded for a "ban" on "ongoing search for incremental improvements for each forum". Only a small minority of FTers are in a position to ban things/users, so perhaps that is why I don't see such a trade-off. In other positions where I've been able to blacklist persons or items/elements, those claiming inconsistency was necessary for performance/improvements often had turf protection concerns that ended up coming up in audits.

Perhaps I don't understand the defence/defense of inconsistency as that is but: (i) an enabler of prejudice when it comes to the use of an instrument of power; and/or (ii) a way to avoid scrutiny necessary to foster improvements that may somewhat disturb the status quo dynamics.

Social interactions include business transactions, not that the division changes a thing when the point is about what consistency and/or lack of consistency yields on FT.

Inconsistency with airlines or airport security don't exactly encourage unanimous/universal kumbaya moments on FT, so I am not sure why it would be any different with anything else on FT.
I really don't understand the point you are making, as I don't see what a security search has to do with posting on an IBB or indeed how the two are related :confused:

I really don't understand the point you are making, as I don't see what a security search has to do with posting on an IBB or indeed how the two are related :confused:

Posting on FT that stems from inconsistency of service provided doesn't exactly encourage unanimous/universal kumbaya moments on FT. Whether that inconsistent service being commented upon on FT is about airlines or airport security or anything else that gets posted on FT, inconsistency doesn't exactly encourage unanimous/universal kumbaya moments on FT.

I referred in my prior post to problem arising from inconsistency and/or its defence/defense:

I don't understand the defence/defense of inconsistency as that is but: (i) an enabler of prejudice when it comes to the use of an instrument of power; and/or (ii) a way to avoid scrutiny necessary to foster improvements that may somewhat disturb the status quo dynamics.

Yes, you keep saying that - but I'm not understanding the point you are making. Just repeating the same thing over and over and over again won't really help explain the point you are trying to make.

Yes, you keep saying that - but I'm not understanding the point you are making. Just repeating the same thing over and over and over again won't really help explain the point you are trying to make.

I am not just repeating the same thing over and over again, but everyone is free to perceive things however they wish.

The point is that inconsistency from service providers on topics relevant to FT creates problems for some members, moderators included, and do not encourage kumbaya moments on FT. Thus threads like this.

GUWonder, if you are saying that behavior that is tolerated in a quiet forum is not always tolerated in a busy forum, that's probably true. For example, the relatively few readers in a quiet forum can learn to ignore a persistent troll or two. This is not possible as the number of readers and the number of trolls multiplies.

Do you see this as a problem? I don't, because the only solution would be to restrict posters on the quiet forum more than necessary. Again, one size does not fit all.

Has it occurred to advocates of this proposal that the reason that Moderators are elected to TB is because voters want Moderators on TB? IIRC, nearly any time a Mod runs for TB, he/she is elected. @:-)

Has it occurred to advocates of this proposal that the reason that Moderators are elected to TB is because voters want Moderators on TB? IIRC, nearly any time a Mod runs for TB, he/she is elected. @:-)

Not really. I remember one (now former) mod who ran several times and did not get elected. A close friend of his also ran and was not elected.

Still, as of this moment, is does not matter if a candidate is a mod or not. If TB can not get involved in moderation in any way, including making a recommendation to Carol, then the conflict does not arise. What a number of posters are hoping is that Carol will become more open to listening to TB's suggestions on any issue, including moderation, and then there will, indeed, be a conflict.

I remember one (now former) mod who ran several times and did not get elected.

I failed a re-election attempt once, and it wasn't very close. If it were true that moderator status guaranteed election, I'm not sure whether you'd call that a feature or a bug!

I failed a re-election attempt once, and it wasn't very close. If it were true that moderator status guaranteed election, I'm not sure whether you'd call that a feature or a bug!

I would say that those who voted for the mods are buggy. :D

I failed a re-election attempt once, and it wasn't very close. If it were true that moderator status guaranteed election, I'm not sure whether you'd call that a feature or a bug!

I stood several times and was not elected - filling a seat initially only after people leaders on MP were sacked. I was then elected in my own right so I am pleased to say that being a Mod is no guarantee of electability.

I stood several times and was not elected - filling a seat initially only after people leaders on MP were sacked. I was then elected in my own right so I am pleased to say that being a Mod is no guarantee of electability.

The large number of hard-working potential TB members such as Markie persuaded me to support term limits. Stay tuned for progress on that.

Even if they can do both equally well, why not ask them to select one or the other, to allow for increased member participation and engagement? If there are 9 TB members, and 84 moderators, and moderators were required to step down to serve on TB, or vice versa, you would have 93 opportunities for members to serve FT in some leadership capacity, rather than the 89 that currently exist. While the number may vary slightly each year, why not aim to keep that potential number at the maximum level FT needs?Just curious as to why you did not consider Ambassadors as volunteers who participate and engage in making FlyerTalk a more rewarding experience for countless users?

Some time ago a member chastised me for not considering him a volunteer as he spent countless hours updating the wiki. Since that time I have come to respect him as a leader in providing useful information and a very important poster.

Does somebody become a leader just because they have been elected or appointed? I think not and am surprised that anyone believes that about me.

What it seems to me I do is nothing different than officiating a soccer match. Something I have done for almost 3 decades. Probably more matches than I have posts on FT. Nobody has ever looked to me as a leader on the pitch. But thank you anyway.

I stood several times and was not elected - filling a seat initially only after people leaders on MP were sacked. I was then elected in my own right so I am pleased to say that being a Mod is no guarantee of electability.

Hey, sounds like me! :D

Hey, sounds like me! :D

People like jackal, Markie, and me who fail and then barely squeak through tend to be very engaged on the TalkBoard. We know that our time is limited because better-known members will probably beat us in the next election. So we try hard to succeed in the time we have.

A term limit will give every TB member this sense of urgency. It will energize the TalkBoard. @:-)

Just curious as to why you did not consider Ambassadors as volunteers who participate and engage in making FlyerTalk a more rewarding experience for countless users?

Some time ago a member chastised me for not considering him a volunteer as he spent countless hours updating the wiki. Since that time I have come to respect him as a leader in providing useful information and a very important poster.

Does somebody become a leader just because they have been elected or appointed? I think not and am surprised that anyone believes that about me.

What it seems to me I do is nothing different than officiating a soccer match. Something I have done for almost 3 decades. Probably more matches than I have posts on FT. Nobody has ever looked to me as a leader on the pitch. But thank you anyway.

For ease in counting, I simply used the "View Forum Leaders" link and used those listed there. So, as far as being "elected or appointed," if you'd prefer not to be considered a leader, perhaps you should ask to be removed from the "Forum Leaders" section.

For ease in counting, I simply used the "View Forum Leaders" link and used those listed there. So, as far as being "elected or appointed," if you'd prefer not to be considered a leader, perhaps you should ask to be removed from the "Forum Leaders" section.Wow!

I did not even know the section existed. IME that is a misnamed section left over from the RP ownership.

I have sent a PM to the CD to consider 1) changing the name to reflect what it really is (eg "FlyerTalk & Forum Facilitators") and to consider adding the Ambassadors.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Added edit. Ah now I see it is the "link" that is mistitled

For ease in counting, I simply used the "View Forum Leaders" link and used those listed there. So, as far as being "elected or appointed," if you'd prefer not to be considered a leader, perhaps you should ask to be removed from the "Forum Leaders" section.Humor me but I'm missing something-where does one find this? :)

If one goes to the top of the forums, it's a link from the bottom that page called 'view forum leaders'

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showgroups.php

Which is absolutely crazy. This lack of transparency is one of FT's most unattractive features.

There's a reason why Senators cannot be Judges, and Presidents cannot be Congresspeople. It's the division of power, and it avoids impropriety, bias, or even the appearance thereof.

It works pretty well.



A closed mind is a terrible thing to waste and if I may, why so stubborn and simply stuck on referring to "not in the purview"? Sometimes things can change. Not saying that they always do but sometimes it does happen.

^^

Absolutely for retroactive term limits for all volunteers across FT !

Absolutely for retroactive term limits for all volunteers across FT !

"Well, that's almost a sentence." - C.M. Burns

The TalkBoard has no purview over such matters not involving TalkBoard volunteers, nor will it per the Community Director.

"Well, that's almost a sentence." - C.M. Burns

The TalkBoard has no purview over such matters not involving TalkBoard volunteers, nor will it per the Community Director. Thanks as always for your opinion ! Only one year left eh......:p

Thanks as always for your opinion ! Only one year left eh......:p

Are you implying that you're planning on doing something besides throwing rocks in this forum after 1 more year? :confused:

(If that's the case, by all means you don't have to run out the clock...)

"Guys, take the bickering out to the street"

http://blog.timesunion.com/amanda/files/2010/06/fight.gif

Wow!

I did not even know the section existed. IME that is a misnamed section left over from the RP ownership.

I have sent a PM to the CD to consider 1) changing the name to reflect what it really is (eg "FlyerTalk & Forum Facilitators") and to consider adding the Ambassadors.

Thanks for pointing it out.

Added edit. Ah now I see it is the "link" that is mistitled

I don't like the verbiage "Forum Leaders," either, but I believe it is hard-coded into the vBulletin software. I support IB changing it to something like what you said if at all possible, though.

I have to say that whilst I laud your aim of 'reinvigoration TB' I don't think this is how to do it. The problem with the current TB appears to be that there are two groups - those who believe everything is fine in our little world, and those that would like to see some changes.

This split is not along Mod/non-Mod TB member lines.

The current TB hasn't even been able to appoint a new liaison with the Mod Team since Spiff became VP! I think this tells you something about the view of TB about the Mod Team and liaison.;)

That we had a contested election for President of TB (and VP) this year should indicate that there is discontent about the way things have been run. I suspect that with annual elections, it may take several years before we can build up enough TB members who favour some changes, to out vote the members who see everything as fine. I fear this proposal will not achieve what you want.

Well said Markie

From the bits of info I've been able to pick up from past issues...it seems too many old members and certain Mod's are reluctant to change.
Change is a good thing...though you may not all agree together on certain points...

This is why I support a change of TB members on a rotating basis, short terms and never 2 terms in a row.
A lot of stuff has gone on...and a lot of us know nothing about it...this is not healthy for the future of the TB trying to move forward.

Perhaps forums should elect their own Mod's....as there are some that you never see, some forums don't even have one (one I frequent the most) and some I think are clearly past being nice to any posters.

Perhaps forums should elect their own Mod's....as there are some that you never see, some forums don't even have one (one I frequent the most) and some I think are clearly past being nice to any posters.
This could be a very good idea...

This could be a very good idea...

...that could go wrong turning the impartial post of Mod. into a popularity contest. Electing Mod.'s is not something I'd ever support but that is just MHO and YMMV.

...that could go wrong turning the impartial post of Mod. into a popularity contest. Electing Mod.'s is not something I'd ever support but that is just MHO and YMMV.

It could be good, it could be bad.

Something that might be a nice compromise would be if there were moderator term limits, having those interested self-nominate, and then having forum participants vote on it, or having forum participants nominate moderator candidates, and leaving the final decision up to TB or the CD.

What difference do you perceive that would bring?

Something that might be a nice compromise would be if there were moderator term limits, having those interested self-nominate, and then having forum participants vote on it, or having forum participants nominate moderator candidates, and leaving the final decision up to TB or the CD.

You're assuming that the Mod.'s would come from within the forum which isn't necessarily the case now. Mod.'s aren't there to be experts on what they're moderating as that's not their role, which is fostering a smooth and healthy debate without personal attacks or other TOS infractions. Many do have well more than a passing interest in the topic at hand but AFAIK it's not a prerequisite.

Mod.'s aren't there to be experts on what they're moderating as that's not their role, which is fostering a smooth and healthy debate without personal attacks or other TOS infractions. Many do have well more than a passing interest in the topic at hand but AFAIK it's not a prerequisite.
Absolutely right. I have next to no knowledge about Frontier and even less experience with Midwest. I leave it to the members to drive flavor the forum. As with other forums I'm assigned to, PMs and RBPs are the primary avenues members use to communicate their desires.

A n y w a y, isn't this thread about term limits for TalkBoard members?

Absolutely right. I have next to no knowledge about Frontier and even less experience with Midwest. I leave it to the members to drive flavor the forum. As with other forums I'm assigned to, PMs and RBPs are the primary avenues members use to communicate their desires.

A n y w a y, isn't this thread about term limits for TalkBoard members?
lol, actually...no.

Here is what this thread is (well, was at the start, anyway) about:

I propose that the talkboard guidelines be amended to require TB members to take a leave of absence from their moderation duties while they serve on the TB.

I further propose that the TB recommend to the TB Host that the TB President and Vice-President be made liaison to the moderator corps, and be granted access to moderator forums and meetings.

Among the reasons I think this is a good idea:

- TB is meant to represent the posters. While moderators are also posters, moderators experience FT in a VERY different way than posters. It's not a perfect analogy, but generally their perspective is that of an employee rather than a customer. I for one would prefer that a customer focus group be made up of customers rather than a mix of customers and employees, even if the employees use the service as often as many customers. After all, even though flight attendants fly may more than 1ks both while working and on SA, an airline customer focus group would never include flight attendants. Their perspective is simply different.

Specifically, by splitting duties between TB and moderator a person may have divided loyalties and/or a conflict of interest. Not that they DO, but they COULD. For example: mega-threads. A moderator may find that creating mega-threads is a simple and easy way to moderate a forum. But the TB could conceivably propose recommending that mega-threads be discouraged (I personally think mega-threads are destroying the user experience). A moderator would have to weigh their desire to have an easy way to moderate and save themselves time against the customer's desire to discourage mega-threads via their TB representatives. Such conflicts are easily avoided by having the TB be purely customer-focused.

- The TB is increasingly ceding authority to moderators to make recommendations for FT. I believe this is happening because moderator members of TB see moderators corps discussion issues and taking action so do not feel the need for the TB to weigh in on issues. By creating an actual separation of powers, TB members will only have the perspective of the user experience to guide their actions and recommendations, independent from the actions and decisions of the moderator corps.

- There are many people who desire to serve and only so many slots to go 'round. It's grand to see so many titles under a single person's name, but it would be better to see fewer titles under more people's names.

- Clearly there should be coordination between moderators and the TB. Hence my suggestion that the TB recommend that the president and vp/s represent the tb to the moderator corps on an ongoing basis.

I think this proposal would re-invigorate the TB and make to more focused on the customer/poster experience.

lol, actually...no.
Whoops, you're right! :o :D

You propose access to the Moderator forum to non-Mods who are elected as President and VP of TalkBoard. Interesting!

The TalkBoard has no purview over such matters not involving TalkBoard volunteers, nor will it per the Community Director.

Well said Markie

From the bits of info I've been able to pick up from past issues...it seems too many old members and certain Mod's are reluctant to change.
Change is a good thing...though you may not all agree together on certain points...

very good point Jinxy

You propose access to the Moderator forum to non-Mods who are elected as President and VP of TalkBoard. Interesting!

Right now some TB members are mods and some are not. So they end up playing sort of an unofficial liaison role.

I'm seeking to formalize that arrangement. And since under my proposal NO members of the TB would be mods, the liaison role is best filled by the President and VP/Secretary of the TB.

In another thread I have also suggested that all mods have read-only access to the private TB forum and that all TB members have read-only access to the private moderator forum in order to create better understanding and collaboration between the two groups.

I find the current silo management to be inefficient and cumbersome.

Of course, in yet another thread I suggest giving ALL posters read-only access to the private TB forum. IMHO we ain't got nuthin' to hide, and letting folks visit that forum would create better collaboration with and understanding of the TB process for the posters. Unfortunately, this suggestion has been rejected several times, both by a majority of the TB and also by Randy by fiat back in the day...

The TalkBoard has no purview over such matters not involving TalkBoard volunteers, nor will it per the Community Director.
Quote:

Well said Markie

From the bits of info I've been able to pick up from past issues...it seems too many old members and certain Mod's are reluctant to change.
Change is a good thing...though you may not all agree together on certain points...very good point JinxyAgreed ^

Some say change is a four letter word
I say change can be good
And good is also a four letter word

and to add, a closed mind is a terrible thing to waste

very good point Jinxy

If one goes to the top of the forums, it's a link from the bottom that page called 'view forum leaders'

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showgroups.phpA little bit late in saying thanks :)

the liaison role is best filled by the President and VP/Secretary of the TB.



Do you propose that they be bound by the confidentiality of that forum?

Do you propose that they be bound by the confidentiality of that forum?

Sure. However the CD thinks it best to manage their access.