TalkBoard Topics - Suggestion: increased collaboration between the TB and the Mod Corps

In another thread the question of TB/Moderator interaction/responsibilities came up.

It seemed like a good area for discussion so I am starting a new thread about it.

One criticism of FT has been that it is 'unfriendly.'

One cause of this may be the iron wall between moderators and the TB, creating a lack of poster-responsive input to the moderator process and a lack of moderator input into the TB process. Moderators and TB members are both tasked with the same mission: make FT the best damn IBB on the Internet. So it makes sense that they should work together toward this goal rather than in complete independence of each other.

Some suggestions to address this perceived issue include:


Having the TB and Mod corps work on joint projects such as TOS review and revision, moderator best practices and forum performance and content review.

Allowing TB members read-only access to the Mod forums, and Mods read-only access to the TB forums.

Setting up a process for posters to appeal moderator decisions to the TB for review if they feel they have been incorrectly moderated.

Consulting with each other over issues such as when to merge forums of merged companies, etc.

Giving the TB a role in moderator selection and/or performance review.


According to the TB Guidelines the TB President serves as liaison between the TB and the Mod corps. That's a good start but collaboration should be expanded, imho.

All FTers are on the same team...it seems to me our advocates and moderators should be working together!

And before you post that 'the TB has no jurisdiction of moderation, yadda yadda yadda,' I suggest that one of the jobs of the TB is to make recommendations to the CD regarding their role. This issue falls squarely under that task.

Some suggestions to address this perceived issue include:


Having the TB and Mod corps work on joint projects such as TOS review and revision, moderator best practices and forum performance and content review.

Allowing TB members read-only access to the Mod forums, and Mods read-only access to the TB forums.

Setting up a process for posters to appeal moderator decisions to the TB for review if they feel they have been incorrectly moderated.

Consulting with each other over issues such as when to merge forums of merged companies, etc.

Giving the TB a role in moderator selection and/or performance review.



Just some thoughts...

Joint projects are a good idea, but when half the TB is mods, isn't it already a joint project? ;)

Read only access doesn't, IMHO, do any good - if there's an issue or someone wants to add commentary, they can't. It either needs to be full access or no access - read only doesn't help anyone out in the long run. I'm not advocating either one...

I like the appeals & moderator selection idea ^ - sorta gives power to the people (although I still think that a moderator required sabbatical should be implemented - and not that I'm supportive of required TB term limits, I'd be more supportive of them if a sabbatical/term limit for moderators was required as well).

As far as consulting on the mergers of fora - it seems to me, given recent mergers, that TB really has little or no impact on this.

Mostly offine til Monday - so if there's a reply to this, apologies if I don't answer in a timely manner.
*****

PS - like the signature, Koko - but also note that word on the street is that Jay's Saloon in Arlington's closing at the end of the year - get there & reminisce about old times in Arlington's best bar before it closes!

Having spent 6 years in 1st grade (kidding), I need to think about this a bit more.

I know TB's been asked to provide input to the folk who are working on updating TOS. I wouldn't mind a TB member being an official part of that group.

Re: read access only for either side. I don't think it would work either for a couple of reasons, but I'm not set in stone on that.

The other stuff I need to think about more, but right now I have to go book an inexpensive Marriott for a stay tonight so I can qualify for the Marriott megabonus promo. And then weirdly enough I have to do some work, even though it's a holiday weekend. I have a bunch of reports & other stuff that have to be done in the next few days, so I might or might not be on very much during the next week.

Cheers.

I know TB's been asked to provide input to the folk who are working on updating TOS. I wouldn't mind a TB member being an official part of that group.

Are changes in the TOS subject to approval by the TB? Would that require a formal vote?

I am interested to understand why the OP believes that the unfriendliness on this site has anything to do with the Moderators or TB. Most of it comes from a small group of long established posters who have no time for new members asking questions to which they (a) know the answer and to which (b) there is reply somewhere already. This is the 'Do a Search' crowd, but to my mind this seems a much smaller bunch than in past years.

The other place I think this comes from is long standing feuds between members that come out in their posts, or back and forth. This can be very off putting for new members trying to 'put their toe in the water' for the first time IMHO.

We've always had a liaison between the TB/Mods but in my mind the separation of powers is quite a healthy thing. What is less healthy, IMHO, is that TB seems to always be locked in disagreement resulting in no changes being agreed. This leaves the Moderators having to keep up with new problems and issues and incorporating these in to their operations.

In terms of the proposal to make changes to the TOS being undertaken by 2 Moderators selected by the Community Director, I am fine with that. At the end of the day these changes won't need to come to a TB vote, although they might get more community buy-in if they were to. The Community Director can simply introduce them. I suspect however, that these changes are several months away as it's a huge job. I have consciously chosen to wait until a draft is presented before making proposals simply due to personal time constraints.

At numerous Moderator Meetings I have asked for a technical way to establish a way for Moderators to know when a member posts for the first time after joining, or when they post in a specific forum for the first time. This would enable, I believe, either a Mod or an Ambassador to engage with that member from the outset. Knowledge is power, and a nice PM, would I think go wonders to encourage people to post.

Now to express my personal views in terms of some of the suggestions made:

Allowing TB members read-only access to the Mod forums, and Mods read-only access to the TB forums.
I am not sure that cross-reading the forums (TB/TT) would give much assistance in terms of the unfriendliness you cite.

Consulting with each other over issues such as when to merge forums of merged companies, etc.
From the outset in respect of the recent CO/UA merge, TB was specifically excluded from considering it. I suspect that this will continue.

Giving the TB a role in moderator selection and/or performance review.
Moderator selection has always been the responsibility of the TB Host or Community Director. The selection of Moderators needs careful review of the applicants previous posting history and I doubt TB would in a position to do this. In addition, with TB votes being public, it might make a member who failed the cut, feel pretty unhappy if their rejection was stated so publicly. Not in favour of that, and surely this would just enhance the unfriendliness, as reason for refusal are demanded or debated.

In terms of Moderator Performance - I would suggest you go to the CD with any comments on Moderators, again exposing this to public vote would not necessarily make a better community IMHO.

One criticism of FT has been that it is 'unfriendly.'

Hasn't that been addressed by the Ambassador program?

MHO is like confirmation hearings on Capitol Hill FT moderator selection and review by TB could turn into a highly politicized process that could drive the two further apart, not have them work closer together.

PS - like the signature, Koko - but also note that word on the street is that Jay's Saloon in Arlington's closing at the end of the year - get there & reminisce about old times in Arlington's best bar before it closes!

Jay's lost it's lease. The last dive bar in Clarendon will be no more when the current lease is over. Yet another mix-use mid-rise to come, I'm sure. :rolleyes:

Ah well, there is always O'Sully's (cha ching!).

One cause of this may be the iron wall between moderators and the TB,

Having the TB and Mod corps work on joint projects such as TOS review and revision

There is no iron wall or iron curtain. TOS review is already proceeding jointly and, as always with TB, very slowly. The TB takes moderator input very seriously and vice versa. As a rule, these are all highly capable and committed people, the kind you would be happy to work with in any endeavor.

As to FT being unfriendly: I learned back in the days of usenet that when a forum's traffic grows beyond a certain point, unfriendly posts begin to predominate. It is the job of moderators to prevent this from happening, because it drives away readers. On a quiet forum the job is pretty easy. As a forum gets busier, success becomes increasingly more difficult to achieve. At some point, I believe it is impossible to prevent degeneration of the forum short of approving every single post by members who do not have a consistently good track record. As FT grows, some forums other than OMNI/PR might reach that level.

I have been musing about whether FT would benefit from a massive increase in the number of moderators, so that all posts would be rapidly seen by someone with the ability to at least temporarily mask an unfriendly post before it causes trouble. Since I have never moderated a busy forum I really don't know if this would be a good idea. It's working fine in the quiet Southwest forum (3 mods, no waiting), but the members in that forum are so nice that the place could run itself without any moderation.

Should the TalkBoard express an opinion on concepts like this? I doubt it. We just don't know enough to recommend anything more than consideration of a pilot project.

I think Mods shouldn't be TB members.. IF the TB decided to modify the tos, then the mods should exclude themselves from it since they are playing judge and jury in their roles..

I would like to see someone over see moderator actions, it can be the TB, but then there would be a conflict since mods are TB members.. Or setup someone outside the moderator/tb crew to oversee moderators...

I would like to see someone over see moderator actions

Uh someone DOES oversee mod actions. She's the Community Director of this Bulletin Board: SanDiego1K. Prior to that it was Randy. If you have difficulty w/ mod actions, she's the person to PM.

On a dif note - I don't have a problem w/ a mod being TB member or vice versa. The roles & responsibilities are different. Note I am not a mod so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Cheers.

Uh someone DOES oversee mod actions. She's the Community Director of this Bulletin Board: SanDiego1K. Prior to that it was Randy. If you have difficulty w/ mod actions, she's the person to PM.

On a dif note - I don't have a problem w/ a mod being TB member or vice versa. The roles & responsibilities are different. Note I am not a mod so I don't have a dog in this hunt.

Cheers.

Except San doesn't respond to pm's.. I tried twice, months apart on the same issue and no reply. So what point is there to have a Community Director who won’t even acknowledge a concern of a member..

Which is why I wrote someone else should oversee moderator actions, and I don’t mind the TB being in charge, but its raises a conflict when the said mod in question also gets to influence an outcome one way or another.. To make it fair mods shouldn’t be allowed to be TB members.. I even propose a FT vote by the members to decided if mods should and can run for TB.. Before someone says they are voted in so my proposal has already been addressed I note that now these same mods who’ll enforce the TOS also are currently undertaking the writing of a new TOS, and I see that a major conflict of interest and ask we end or allow mods to be TB members from now on..

There is no iron wall or iron curtain. TOS review is already proceeding jointly and, as always with TB, very slowly. The TB takes moderator input very seriously and vice versa. As a rule, these are all highly capable and committed people, the kind you would be happy to work with in any endeavor.


I agree that there is currently collaboration between the groups. I still think there could be more.

I also worry that to the extent collaboration takes place currently it mostly takes place between mods and those members of the TB who are also moderators. That limits input as imho the experience of being a moderator/poster is different that the experience of being a poster only.

In my ideal FT management world moderators would take a leave of absence from moderation while they serve on the TB but there would be so much collaboration between the TB members and the moderators that they would not 'lose touch' with the moderation world.

This would serve the dual goal of creating more volunteer opportunities and getting all the volunteers working together rather than semi-independently.