TalkBoard Topics - Should there be a forum or threads or <insert your idea> for moderation feedback?

The TalkBoard is tasked with making recommendations for the creation and eliminating forums and TOS amendments.

In this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1286360-i-intend-run-president-talkboard-i-am-going-tell-you-why.html

a prolonged discussion took place regarding how to make the day-to-day management of FT more responsive to posters and poster input.

Among the suggestions was a forum dedicated to moderation input. Such a forum exists on other boards such as http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php

On that forum there is a section specifically for discussion of moderation. There exists there a healthy and open dialogue about moderation on the board. I am not certain, but I think that 'moderated' posts go there as well, so all can see what is being moderated out of the main forums.

The approach is: moderation actions will never be taken in secret; that way everyone can learn from them.

Meanwhile, on an ad hoc basis, some FT moderators have created threads within the forums they moderate to accept feedback on day-to-day management.

These include (but are not limited to):

Moderators Guilty of Premature Evacuation (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html)

The Merged Merged Threads Thread (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/hilton-hhonors/746044-merged-merged-threads-thread.html)

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/872333-omni-moderation-too-hard-too-soft-discuss.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/communitybuzz/1203332-attention-were-seeking-your-thoughts-commercial-type-dos.html

To me, the problem with this ad hoc approach is that it requires a moderator willing to allow (or start) such threads and ends up providing different levels of poster input into the day-to-day operation of FT based on whatever forum one happens to be in.

So my question is whether it makes sense for the TB to recommend the creation of a forum where poster input is allowed on day-to-day management where things like mega-threading, best practices and general rules can take place?

Or if perhaps there should be a standardized thread in each forum for such input?

Or some other method to publicly discuss these matters?

Or if this discussion should continue to only take place (in some instances) at the discretion of the moderator of the specific forum or (in other instances) in the specific instances the moderators care to collect feedback, leaving all other questions and discussions about day-to-day management to PM, email and other IBBs where FT moderation is openly discussed (ie, the status quo)?

Any and all input welcome, AFAIAC. ^

ignoring everything else - even if there was such a thread in every forum, i dont see how moderators could be forced to participate. related >
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1285691-proposal-open-ft-community-director-sandiego1k-forum-successor-orp-forum.html

Is Premature Evacuation when you cannot make it to the toilet in time ?

Anyway, I find that all the moderated threads are done in secret unless you count "we deleted unnecessary posts that we did not like and added no value in our opinion" added as a post.

To me, the problem with this ad hoc approach is that it requires a moderator willing to allow (or start) such threads and ends up providing different levels of poster input into the day-to-day operation of FT based on whatever forum one happens to be in.

So my question is whether it makes sense for the TB to recommend the creation of a forum where poster input is allowed on day-to-day management where things like mega-threading, best practices and general rules can take place?I believe that it depends on the what the community in a particular forum wants or needs, not whether or not a moderator is “willing” to launch threads requesting feedback.

FlyerTalk moderators — by my observation, anyway, and not just because I happen to be a FlyerTalk moderator — generally do care about the FlyerTalk members whom they serve and want to provide them with the best experience possible. Otherwise, what is the point of volunteering to become a moderator?

Also, not all discussion needs to be public: FlyerTalk members also send private communications to moderators with their ideas, concerns or suggestions.

While I believe — and always have believed — that openness and transparency should be encouraged, I am not convinced that having an entity recommend or dictate this openness and transparency is the best solution.

I could be wrong...

I believe that it depends on the what the community in a particular forum wants or needs, not whether or not a moderator is “willing” to launch threads requesting feedback.

FlyerTalk moderators — by my observation, anyway, and not just because I happen to be a FlyerTalk moderator — generally do care about the FlyerTalk members whom they serve and want to provide them with the best experience possible. Otherwise, what is the point of volunteering to become a moderator?

Also, not all discussion needs to be public: FlyerTalk members also send private communications to moderators with their ideas, concerns or suggestions.

While I believe — and always have believed — that openness and transparency should be encouraged, I am not convinced that having an entity recommend or dictate this openness and transparency is the best solution.

I could be wrong...

Certainly public input and discussions having a standardized home would not preclude private discussions as well. ^

I would like to see a thread on moderation as a sticky in each forum, as I think that the members of each forum are the best ones to comment. A sticky would be easy for members to find, rather than sending them to a different forum to comment on moderation.

That's a start anyway.

I could be wrong...
:D :p

Among the suggestions was a forum dedicated to moderation input. Such a forum exists on other boards such as http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php

On that forum there is a section specifically for discussion of moderation. There exists there a healthy and open dialogue about moderation on the board. I am not certain, but I think that 'moderated' posts go there as well, so all can see what is being moderated out of the main forums.

Your description is correct, although I will confess to taking immediate action a couple times. One I regretted & posted about it; the other involved removing a derogatory reference to a young woman in the news, however, no "disciplinary action" was taken in that case either.

In six months we've suspended ZERO real members at Travel Underground (http://www.travelunderground.org). Perhaps half a dozen forum spammers have been put on ice.

What we've discovered at Travel Underground (http://www.travelunderground.org) is that people respond (sometimes reluctantly, but they do respond) if you apply enough just effort to effect the desired behavior. It keeps our best & most active members contributing productively, and they are worth the time & effort.

And yes, I do read every post -- about 17,000 to date. If your moderators can't do the job, you need moderators interested enough in the job to get it done.

Someone (kipper?) asked how many were disengaged from TS/S after the changes. About 200 have shown up at Travel Underground (http://www.travelunderground.org), and they continue to arrive. Many more have probably disengaged but not made the switch. Our annualized rate of pageviews runs 700k - 1M, depending on how much TSA stupidity is in the news.

These users and all this activity gladly would have remained at TS/S were it not for the ill-advised changes that were made there.

TS/S, on the other hand, is just a shell of what it used to be. What's most ironic is that the two FlyerTalkers who whined the loudest about the old TS/S still don't grace the "new" TS/S with their participation, even though it's been destroyed to their liking.

Or if perhaps there should be a standardized thread in each forum for such input?

This is my initial favorite.

ignoring everything else - even if there was such a thread in every forum, i dont see how moderators could be forced to participate.

I do. Carol could add this requirement to the moderator's counterpart to the TOS. This would not be something the TB should formally recommend, but if a consensus develops on this thread I'm sure the idea will be thoroughly considered by the moderators and by Carol.

What we've discovered at Travel Underground (http://www.travelunderground.org) is that people respond (sometimes reluctantly, but they do respond) if you apply enough just effort to effect the desired behavior. It keeps our best & most active members contributing productively, and they are worth the time & effort.

And yes, I do read every post -- about 17,000 to date. If your moderators can't do the job, you need moderators interested enough in the job to get it done.

This is EXACTLY how we do it on the Southwest forum, where you used to hang out a lot. It's difficult to sustain as a forum gets large, but it's worth the effort. It's much easier to keep the garden weed-free than to remove weeds from an overgrown garden.

These users and all this activity gladly would have remained at TS/S were it not for the ill-advised changes that were made there. TS/S, on the other hand, is just a shell of what it used to be.

My perspective:

I hope you're not under the impression that there is some ideal forum structure and policy that can attract and retain every potential poster. The fundamental problem is that some posting styles do not mix. Some people prefer to read calm posts; others prefer to read heated posts. People generally post in the style they prefer to read.

Given this reality, FT needed to choose which style to cater to for TS&S discussion. Since the rest of FT encourages calm posts, the decision was obvious. That decision was and is right for FT. It's not right for members who prefer heated posts. Travelunderground caters to those members, and IMHO everybody is better off for the separation. It's win-win.

Could FT have created another TS&S forum for heated discussions? I threw the wild idea of an "anything goes" forum into the mix in the committee. However having "hot" and "cold" forums on the same subject on FT would be a problem. Heated posts would be made continually in the "cold" forum, creating endless work for moderators. This deficiency is present, but to a lesser degree, under the current structure. Having the "anything goes" posts on a different website is an improvement. One size will never fit all.

These users and all this activity gladly would have remained at TS/S were it not for the ill-advised changes that were made there.

TS/S, on the other hand, is just a shell of what it used to be. What's most ironic is that the two FlyerTalkers who whined the loudest about the old TS/S still don't grace the "new" TS/S with their participation, even though it's been destroyed to their liking.
Congratulations on your windfall, Mike. I really do wish you well and hope your board continues to be a smashing success. ^

This is my initial favorite.



I do. Carol could add this requirement to the moderator's counterpart to the TOS. This would not be something the TB should formally recommend, but if a consensus develops on this thread I'm sure the idea will be thoroughly considered by the moderators and by Carol.

After watching the Delta moderation thread in action today, I am beginning to lean that way was well.

I'm certain the TB could come up with a recommendation to amend the TOS to create these threads, preferably as stickies and with clear titles....

Something like this:

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).

I would like to see a thread on moderation as a sticky in each forum, as I think that the members of each forum are the best ones to comment. A sticky would be easy for members to find, rather than sending them to a different forum to comment on moderation.

That's a start anyway.

Given that some members have complained about too many stickies at the top of some forums, I'm not sure a sticky thread would be a workable solution.

Besides, often stickies are the least-looked-at threads in a forum. The eye seems to naturally skip all the administrative junk at the top of the page and jump right down to the meat of the forum.

Given that some members have complained about too many stickies at the top of some forums, I'm not sure a sticky thread would be a workable solution.

Besides, often stickies are the least-looked-at threads in a forum. The eye seems to naturally skip all the administrative junk at the top of the page and jump right down to the meat of the forum.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

I appreciate that a few members here think that this is a major, major issue. But I defer to Canarsie's experience:

It must work — that thread is rarely “bumped up”, so the Delta SkyMiles forum moderators must be doing something right — and even then, sometimes a FlyerTalk member will post to it not to complain, but rather to commend the moderators of the Delta SkyMiles forum. Those commendations especially make my day better.

Many issues in the Delta SkyMiles forum have been resolved in that thread.

Even more interesting, you might be amazed that — despite the public thread — how many FlyerTalk members will contact me privately first about a problem or an issue before taking it public if necessary, which is exactly the protocol that should be followed.

It works.

In one of the busier forums on FT, there's a few posts each month (on average) on this subject. Certainly not worthy of sticky status, IMHO. Ignoring the arguments for and against whether this type of venue should exist, it appears that where it does exist, it serves to show that this is not a major issue for the vast majority of posters.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

I beg to differ with you as the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread always manages to float back to the top of the board.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.And yet in some forums, if you insert a sticky, you'll get complaints about the moderators stickying something else in the thread which was done to improve their experience.

So while you personally may not like that idea, we do need to consider how all the other members of FT - aside from yourself - who may not even be aware of this idea will react if it should happen.

Additionally, I look at this as an idea, and just think it's a hammer to crack a nut. So I have to have a thread so that members can complain about the 3-4 visible moderator decisions I make in a year on Virgin Flying Club. Really?

There's a mistake in critical thinking here, that one size fits all across all forums. It doesn't. So you'll have some forums where the users of those forums will resent the intrusion of another sticky, and you've got some where the amount of visible moderator activity is miniscule... still I'm sure the users of the Antarctica forum will be happy to have a thread to discuss all the moderator decisions that occur in that forum ;)

I also think the balance is wrong - complaining in public seems to be considered more vital than actually talking to the mods about it. Why wouldn't you want to encourage dialogue between the mods and the members in the first instance?

Oh yes, I suspect because this is all about some people on TB being able to see all the complaints which are being made about moderators, so they can gather more grist to their mill..... It also allows TB to begin to insert themselves into the conversation - and we already know that is an aim of some at the moment.

I really hate, this 'one size fits all' approach - it completely ignores the diversity in communities we have on FT. That's not being very representative of the members.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

Most forums have links to popular permanent threads posted in one of the stickies. Therefore I favor floating the proposed threads.

The situation with sticky threads reminds me of the 1970s and 198s phone books. Since virtually every house had a phone book, advocates of every stripe insisted that various bits of vital information be included in the phone book. And where did they put it? At the front of the book, of course.

After several years of this, the "front of the book" grew to over 50 pages. You couldn't find anything in there without flipping dozens of pages. An initially reasonable idea turned out to be practically worthless in the end.

I beg to differ with you as the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread always manages to float back to the top of the board.

The only reason I knew of that thread was because it was mentioned elsewhere. Had it not been mentioned there, I'd not have known about it, and obviously would not have known to search for it.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

It seems to work well enough as is. I wouldn't welcome making it a sticky since I don't see how doing so would improve the user experience. If anything, making a sticky of it would increase the chances of missing DL threads of greater interest to me. If a matter arises that warrants use of that thread, people seem to discover it or get pointed in its direction somehow or another.

To answer the thread's headline question, that could be a topic for "Only Community Director" forum (a sort of successor forum to "Only Randy Petersen"). However, there seems to be a desire to keep an OCD forum (no pun intended) off the table.

Given that some members have complained about too many stickies at the top of some forums, I'm not sure a sticky thread would be a workable solution.

Besides, often stickies are the least-looked-at threads in a forum. The eye seems to naturally skip all the administrative junk at the top of the page and jump right down to the meat of the forum.I happen to agree with you as unless it's (for example), "Reporter wants to put you on TV" or something similar, it's gonna get missed. I don't know if this will work either but perhaps a thread here in TB Topics as this way the thread is in one place (with that thread made a sticky) with an e-mail sent to members the way TalkMail is sent. It's still a leading the horse to water situation but at least it's been communicated to all members. I dunno, just a thought...

That's good input. I guess there are pros and cons to both floating and sticky.

But I think if the threads all have the same very clear title in all forums then everyone will know to look for them or can be told to do so. Something like "Official X Forum Moderation Discussion Thread." The first post could be the TOS that is developed around the threads. In such a case, I think floating ones would work. That was how the OMNI moderation discussion thread worked and ime it worked pretty well.

And yet in some forums, if you insert a sticky, you'll get complaints about the moderators stickying something else in the thread which was done to improve their experience.

So while you personally may not like that idea, we do need to consider how all the other members of FT - aside from yourself - who may not even be aware of this idea will react if it should happen.

Additionally, I look at this as an idea, and just think it's a hammer to crack a nut. So I have to have a thread so that members can complain about the 3-4 visible moderator decisions I make in a year on Virgin Flying Club. Really?

There's a mistake in critical thinking here, that one size fits all across all forums. It doesn't. So you'll have some forums where the users of those forums will resent the intrusion of another sticky, and you've got some where the amount of visible moderator activity is miniscule... still I'm sure the users of the Antarctica forum will be happy to have a thread to discuss all the moderator decisions that occur in that forum ;)

I also think the balance is wrong - complaining in public seems to be considered more vital than actually talking to the mods about it. Why wouldn't you want to encourage dialogue between the mods and the members in the first instance? This is not about complaining in public. It's about allowing posters to collaborate with moderators to better understand and have better, more interactive input into moderation in that forum.

Putting one in each forum ensures consistent opportunities for that collaboration, understanding and input.

Why would a moderator not want that sort of opportunity? It has proven quite effective across several forums, including in Cbuzz which you yourself moderate! Your commercial do thread was brilliant and quite effective. This is simply formalizing that sort of opportunity. ^

Oh yes, I suspect because this is all about some people on TB being able to see all the complaints which are being made about moderators, so they can gather more grist to their mill..... It also allows TB to begin to insert themselves into the conversation - and we already know that is an aim of some at the moment.

I really hate, this 'one size fits all' approach - it completely ignores the diversity in communities we have on FT. That's not being very representative of the members.
Firstly, no black helicopters circling here. Just trying to improve the poster experience using best practices already developed and tested across FT forums. This proposal would not insert the TB into the conversation, it would insert a forum's posters into the conversation!

I don't think it will be one size fits all at all. I imagine some moderation threads will be quite dormant. Others quite active. They will evolve to serve the unique needs of that forum and its moderators. They will help posters understand moderation and help moderators understand posters. It's a win-win!

Why would a moderator not want that sort of opportunity? It has proven quite effective across several forums, including in Cbuzz which you yourself moderate! Your commercial do thread was brilliant and quite effective. This is simply formalizing that sort of opportunity. You don't seem to have understood that the Cbuzz thread was about a very specific topic we needed to seek feedback on. The purpose of that thread has been a bit mischaracterised in this debate. Indeed, included in the OP was the statement:
We would appreciate your feedback on this – all or any of the questions above. This is not a time to critique any other websites or provide feedback on moderation outside this topic, although we welcome your feedback on our moderation by PM.

You seem to be suggesting a specific question we asked is somehow akin to a general discussion on moderation.

The approach has not been successful on all forums it's been tried on. Again, that one size doesn't fit all mentality.

You don't seem to have understood that the Cbuzz thread was about a very specific topic we needed to seek feedback on. The purpose of that thread has been a bit mischaracterised in this debate. Indeed, included in the OP was the statement:


You seem to be suggesting a specific question we asked is somehow akin to a general discussion on moderation.Well you asked a specific question and you got constructive, collaborative feedback that led to better understanding by the posters and more responsive moderation based on what the posters wanted.

Why limit that sort of constructive input, collaboration and outcome?

The approach has not been successful on all forums it's been tried on. Again, that one size doesn't fit all mentality.
Can you provide specific examples and outcomes?

I beg to differ with you as the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread always manages to float back to the top of the board.

The only reason I knew of that thread was because it was mentioned elsewhere. Had it not been mentioned there, I'd not have known about it, and obviously would not have known to search for it.

First of all I am a firm believer that less is more. Especially so in the case of sticky threads. Anyone that is a board regular on forums which have these mod discussion threads are aware of their existence. Frankly for a newbie or infrequent visitor, a RBP or PM to the moderators should suffice. When we receive a question concerning moderation, the DL mods always respond and when possible provide an explanation as to why we took a particular action. Needless to say, there are situations which we cannot discuss what has taken place, especially so when suspensions are issued.

Also I would like to remind everyone that the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread is unique in it's history. It was the first one allowed by Randy on FT when discussion about moderation was not allowed as per the TOS. In fact there was another DL mod discussion thread that Randy closed and never reopened on the DL board.

There were 2 factors that convinced the DL mods at the time to keep the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread going. The first was that there was a violent reaction to having the DL board moderated by many of our members. Secondly the SkyMiles program was in the midst of a drastic reduction in benefits and there was a popular uprising of Medallions taking place. The www.saveskymiles.com movement (which I was a proud member of) was going full blast and the DL moderators had their hands full keeping the board civil and also removing duplicate and triplicate posts.

IMHO the bottom line is that LESS IS MORE and we don't need a forum dedicated to moderation input or placing a mod discussion thread in each forum.

First of all I am a firm believer that less is more. Especially so in the case of sticky threads. Anyone that is a board regular on forums which have these mod discussion threads are aware of their existence. Frankly for a newbie or infrequent visitor, a RBP or PM to the moderators should suffice. When we receive a question concerning moderation, the DL mods always respond and when possible provide an explanation as to why we took a particular action. Needless to say, there are situations which we cannot discuss what has taken place, especially so when suspensions are issued.

Also I would like to remind everyone that the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread is unique in it's history. It was the first one allowed by Randy on FT when discussion about moderation was not allowed as per the TOS. In fact there was another DL mod discussion thread that Randy closed and never reopened on the DL board.

There were 2 factors that convinced the DL mods at the time to keep the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread going. The first was that there was a violent reaction to having the DL board moderated by many of our members. Secondly the SkyMiles program was in the midst of a drastic reduction in benefits and there was a popular uprising of Medallions taking place. The www.saveskymiles.com movement (which I was a proud member of) was going full blast and the DL moderators had their hands full keeping the board civil and also removing duplicate and triplicate posts.

IMHO the bottom line is that LESS IS MORE and we don't need a forum dedicated to moderation input or placing a mod discussion thread in each forum.

I'm trying to understand how you draw the conclusion in your last paragraph from the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that the mod discussion thread on DL, one of the busiest and sometimes most heated forums on FT, is a Very Good Thing. I agree! The exchange between you, kipper and other DL posters yesterday was, I thought, a model for how well that thread serves to allow posters to both understand AND have input into the day-to-day management of FT. ^

But that it is not a good thing for other forums?

There are other concepts, like allowing embedded images, that made folks nervous. But it was tested in some forums and found to be quite beneficial despite dire predictions.

The same thing seems to have taken place with the moderator discussion threads that have existed in various forums on FT.

Why should great ideas be limited to certain forums and not made broadly available across FT?

I'm trying to understand how you draw the conclusion in your last paragraph from the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that the mod discussion thread on DL, one of the busiest and sometimes most heated forums on FT, is a Very Good Thing. I agree! The exchange between you, kipper and other DL posters yesterday was, I thought, a model for how well that thread serves to allow posters to both understand AND have input into the day-to-day management of FT. ^

But that it is not a good thing for other forums?

There are other concepts, like allowing embedded images, that made folks nervous. But it was tested in some forums and found to be quite beneficial despite dire predictions.

The same thing seems to have taken place with the moderator discussion threads that have existed in various forums on FT.

Why should great ideas be limited to certain forums and not made broadly available across FT?

Every forum on FT is different as you well know. What has worked on the DL board might not be needed on another forum.

I am totally opposed to having a dedicated forum for moderation input. In addition, if there is a thread on a particular forum for this purpose as we have on the DL board one would think that a longtime member like yourself would trust the judgment of the moderators on those forums as to whether or not we need a sticky. In addition, on forums that do not have these mod discussion threads you should also trust the judgment of those mods as to the need for a thread such as this. BTW, the DL mods could have simply closed down our mod discussion thread in 2003 and used the TOS as our reason but we totally understood the need to have this dialogue with some of our members and opted to keep it open. In my book this is called a judgment call.

If the mods on a particular board decide to start such a thread there would be no argument from me.
The bottom line is that the TB should allow the mods to decide if this is needed and have a little faith in our decision making process.

Every forum on FT is different as you well know. What has worked on the DL board might not be needed on another forum.

I am totally opposed to having a dedicated forum for moderation input. In addition, if there is a thread on a particular forum for this purpose as we have on the DL board one would think that a longtime member like yourself would trust the judgment of the moderators on those forums as to whether or not we need a sticky. In addition, on forums that do not have these mod discussion threads you should also trust the judgment of those mods as to the need for a thread such as this. BTW, the DL mods could have simply closed down our mod discussion thread in 2003 and used the TOS as our reason but we totally understood the need to have this dialogue with some of our members and opted to keep it open. In my book this is called a judgment call.

If the mods on a particular board decide to start such a thread there would be no argument from me.
The bottom line is that the TB should allow the mods to decide if this is needed and have a little faith in our decision making process.

As I say upthread, I agree with you that best practice seems to be a thread in a forum rather than a dedicated forum. And that sticky-ing these threads is needless.

However, I disagree with the notion that each mod should be able to make up their own rules for 'their' forums. There are doubtlessly judgement calls to be made by mods every day. But I think allowing feedback and collaborative input to day-to-day management is more of a structural call than a judgement call. Or at least it should be.

In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(

The inconsistency both within as well as among forums should, imho, be addressed, implementing a best practice FT-wide so that posters get a consistent and meaningful opportunity for collaborative input site-wide.

If there is a down-side to this, I have yet to see it articulated or demonstrated.

However, I disagree with the notion that each mod should be able to make up their own rules for 'their' forums. There are doubtlessly judgement calls to be made by mods every day. But I think allowing feedback and collaborative input to day-to-day management is more of a structural call than a judgement call. Or at least it should be.

The inconsistency both within as well as among forums should, imho, be addressed, implementing a best practice FT-wide so that posters get a consistent and meaningful opportunity for collaborative input site-wide.

We don't live in a perfect world and no two umpires call balls and strikes the exact same way. There will always be some variance and interpretation of the rules as you well know. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. To date you have not proved it is broken! @:-)


In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(


I seriously take issue with this statement. You are fully aware that there are decisions made by moderators that we are not allowed to discuss in public! You are trying to take o2k's comments, changing the context of same to your advantage when what o2k has posted is totally appropriate!!!

However, I disagree with the notion that each mod should be able to make up their own rules for 'their' forums.
Members are not best served if quiet forums and busy forums cannot be managed differently from each other. Requiring a mod policy discussion thread is only a minor imposition. That discussion thread will help reveal whether forum participants like the way the forum is being managed. Flexibility then is an unqualified benefit.

Why should great ideas be limited to certain forums and not made broadly available across FT?'Great'? That's quite an assumption.

The bottom line is that the TB should allow the mods to decide if this is needed and have a little faith in our decision making process.Lack of trust is the real point of this and other recent threads in this forum. Perhaps that's what really needs to be addressed before any cosmetic or structural changes.

In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(Why is that :( or even surprising? Mods are not automatons.

And yet ... despite the fact of diversity of opinion mods still manage to collaborate just fine and forums still manage to function quite well. Not good enough for you? Why so? Because if their best efforts aren't good enough for you then I have a tough time believing anything they try will be good enough for you.

The inconsistency both within as well as among forums should, imho, be addressed, implementing a best practice FT-wide so that posters get a consistent and meaningful opportunity for collaborative input site-wide.Right. Well then let's just get rid of all those pesky human posters, with their diversity of perspective and plurality of opinion. Radical, yes, but solves the problem of inconsistent application of the TOS.

Honestly, koko, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of this proposal. It's clear that you wish to finagle around the CD's stated position on the continued separation of TB and moderator staff. But why? How does your personal desire serve The Posters™' interests more than your own?

We don't live in a perfect world and no two umpires call balls and strikes the exact same way. There will always be some variance and interpretation of the rules as you well know. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. To date you have not proved it is broken! @:-)

I seriously take issue with this statement. You are fully aware that there are decisions made by moderators that we are not allowed to discuss in public! You are trying to take o2k's comments, changing the context of same to your advantage when what o2k has posted is totally appropriate!!!
I think a system where things that affect the public (FT posters) but are done in the dark of night and where people are not allowed to discuss them is broken.
'Great'? That's quite an assumption.

Lack of trust is the real point of this and other recent threads in this forum. Perhaps that's what really needs to be addressed before any cosmetic or structural changes.

Why is that sad or even surprising? Mods are not automatons.

Right. Well then let's just get rid of all those pesky human posters, with their diversity of perspectives and plurality of opinions. Radical, yes, but solves your objection to inconsistency doesn't it?

Honestly, koko, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of this proposal. It's clear that you wish to finagle around the CD's stated position on the continued separation of TB and moderator staff. But why? How does your desire serve the posters' interests more than your own?
I think there's a lack of trust because things that will affect a great number of posters are done in the dark of night, and if someone dares to ask why something was done, they often are told, "We don't discuss that." That doesn't exactly build a lot of trust in the system, does it?

If you went for a doctor's visit, were told you needed to have a certain procedure done, and when you showed up for that procedure, you were told, "We changed your procedure to XYZ instead," I'd hope you'd question why it was done. If they then told you, "We don't discuss why we changed things, nor do we discuss exactly what this procedure involved," I'd hope that most people would run away from a medical practice like that.

I think a system where things that affect the public (FT posters) but are done in the dark of night and where people are not allowed to discuss them is broken.
What has been systematically done in the 'dark of night'? I've no idea what you're talking about or what the continued use of this euphemism serves. What specific changes affected you and what did the mod(s) in question say when you contacted them about it? Or are you talking about hypothetical changes? Your clarity is appreciated.

I think a system where things that affect the public (FT posters) but are done in the dark of night and where people are not allowed to discuss them is broken.

I think there's a lack of trust because things that will affect a great number of posters are done in the dark of night, and if someone dares to ask why something was done, they often are told, "We don't discuss that." That doesn't exactly build a lot of trust in the system, does it?

Perhaps you should actually take the time to review FT's guidelines and rules regarding how moderators are supposed to conduct themselves before you make that, "done in the dark of night" comment that is highly inflammatory.


They do moderate their forums and look for rule violations. They may delete and edit posts and close threads without notice. They may discipline and suspend members who fail to adhere to the rules (see Discipline and Appeal for more information).



On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol (SanDiego1k).


What has been systematically done in the 'dark of night'? I've no idea what you're talking about or what the continued use of this euphemism serves. What specific changes affected you and what did the mod(s) in question say when you contacted them about it? Or are you talking about hypothetical changes? Your clarity is appreciated.

+1

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

This is not the first time we have seen moderation threads like this on TB. IMHO it is a veiled attempt to circumvent what has been posted in the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/366553-do-not-post-opinions-moderation-moderators-their-actions-here.html sticky thread! Frankly you should be discussing this issue with SanDiego1k.

...
If you went for a doctor's visit, were told you needed to have a certain procedure done, and when you showed up for that procedure, you were told, "We changed your procedure to XYZ instead," I'd hope you'd question why it was done. If they then told you, "We don't discuss why we changed things, nor do we discuss exactly what this procedure involved," I'd hope that most people would run away from a medical practice like that.So I guess you would be OK with the doctor publicly discussing his intervention with you.

In the Guidelines and Rules you will also read the followingThe purpose of discipline for violating the rules is not to punish members, but to protect FlyerTalk users and to facilitate effective discussion in FlyerTalk forums. We intervene with individual members and we do not discuss that intervention same as my doctor will not discuss with the public any treatments/procedures he has with me.

You most likely do not believe it and I really do not care anymore but same as a match that I'd be officiating there is more personal satisfaction in getting an indivdual back to posting in the best interests of FlyerTalk. which is facilitating effective discussion, than there is in punishing somebody. @:-)

Yep the internet is filled with the dead carcasses of IBBs that imploded from flame wars. Go back and read the threads from the early day here on FT. My belief it is only luck and the fact that the first 1000 were for the most part ladies and gentlemen

This is not the first time we have seen moderation threads like this on TB. IMHO it is a veiled attempt to circumvent what has been posted in the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/366553-do-not-post-opinions-moderation-moderators-their-actions-here.html sticky thread! Frankly you should be discussing this issue with SanDiego1k.

Oy, another conspiracy theory? Really?

I am proposing a recommendation for an amendment to the TOS to be considered by the TB. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17584371-post12.html)

As hard as it might be, can we focus on the proposal rather than the personalities (sort of ironic that *I* am the one saying this to some of the *mods* participating here! :))!

Again: I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?
There's no point trying to answer that question though, because whatever response the mods give, we'll be accused of trying to be obstructive because we don't want the the threads or what we will say will be ignored because it doesn't fit within your view of what is appropriate (like you've done with RSSrsvp's opinion of whether they are appropriate for all forums - given he is one of a small number of mods with experience of such things, I would have thought his experience would be valuable, but it apparently isn't if it doesn't agree with the perceived wisdom of some on here).

So, given that I have low expectations about the reception, I'm not sure I want to even try to express my concerns. The issue with that is that because a number of people posting on this thread just don't like mods/moderators, anything we say will be used against us...

Perhaps you should actually take the time to review FT's guidelines and rules regarding how moderators are supposed to conduct themselves before you make that, "done in the dark of night" comment that is highly inflammatory.


They do moderate their forums and look for rule violations. They may delete and edit posts and close threads without notice. They may discipline and suspend members who fail to adhere to the rules (see Discipline and Appeal for more information).



On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol (SanDiego1k).




+1
Let's start with the TS/S split. Not specific moderator action or decisions, but that was, for the most part, done in the dark of night, without telling most posters.

Yes, TOS currently says that specific moderator actions cannot be discussed. My point is that because specific moderator actions cannot be discussed, it is all done in the dark of night. Isn't that pretty much the definition of it? No one can know what happens, because the TOS prohibits it. How would you describe it?

There's no point trying to answer that question though, because whatever response the mods give, we'll be accused of trying to be obstructive because we don't want the the threads or what we will say will be ignored because it doesn't fit within your view of what is appropriate (like you've done with RSSrsvp's opinion of whether they are appropriate for all forums - given he is one of a small number of mods with experience of such things, I would have thought his experience would be valuable, but it apparently isn't if it doesn't agree with the perceived wisdom of some on here).

So, given that I have low expectations about the reception, I'm not sure I want to even try to express my concerns. The issue with that is that because a number of people posting on this thread just don't like mods/moderators, anything we say will be used against us...
Why do mods not want the threads? I realize that in some forums, the threads will have very little, if any activity, and as such, will very quickly drop from the first page when one views the forum.

Others will be very active, and others will see moderate activity.

I'm with koko, in that I don't see what the downside is of giving people a place to post their questions or concerns about moderation of a specific forum. If the forum "doesn't need one," then the thread will sit without use.

There's no point trying to answer that question though, because whatever response the mods give, we'll be accused of trying to be obstructive because we don't want the the threads or what we will say will be ignored because it doesn't fit within your view of what is appropriate (like you've done with RSSrsvp's opinion of whether they are appropriate for all forums - given he is one of a small number of mods with experience of such things, I would have thought his experience would be valuable, but it apparently isn't if it doesn't agree with the perceived wisdom of some on here).

So, given that I have low expectations about the reception, I'm not sure I want to even try to express my concerns. The issue with that is that because a number of people posting on this thread just don't like mods/moderators, anything we say will be used against us...I am open to RSSrsvp's opinion that they may not be right for each forum. My response is: isn't that better decided by the posters of that forum by their use or non-use of it, rather than having the forum's moderators speak on behalf of all of that forum's posters?

So, yes, I am utterly open to a dialogue on all aspects of this proposal. But, as always, I'm not just to going to accept opinions without questioning and exploring them, typically from the perspective of empowering the posters as much as possible to create the best FlyerTalk we can be.

I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?So what you are saying is that you COULD answer this question...it's just that you don't care to?

Let's start with the TS/S split. Not specific moderator action or decisions, but that was, for the most part, done in the dark of night, without telling most posters.

Yes, TOS currently says that specific moderator actions cannot be discussed. My point is that because specific moderator actions cannot be discussed, it is all done in the dark of night. Isn't that pretty much the definition of it? No one can know what happens, because the TOS prohibits it. How would you describe it?Personally I like to discuss end results but you are seemingly fascinated with processes and dark of the night helicopters.

So what was wrong with the split. No question a new IBB was started in June and now has 200 members. No question the Practical forum is now beginning since September to get useful information available for somebody traveling. (As a footnote 575 individual posters have posted at least once in that forum since Labor day reopening.)

But I guess it doesn't matter to you since you seem to think it was a moderator action when in fact it was an IB administrators and CD action. The alternative as explained to me when asked to volunteer by PM was to eliminate the forum in its entirety. I really have no idea why the IB administrators and the Community Director did not choose a different method or why they did not ask you to assist maybe you can send a PM to admin.

Not going to beat around the bush here but I am extremely proud for the accomplishements that the dozen or so accomplished during the spring and summer. In fact I feel it is one of the best things I have ever done in giving back to FlyerTalk

Let's start with the TS/S split. Not specific moderator action or decisions, but that was, for the most part, done in the dark of night, without telling most posters.

Yes, TOS currently says that specific moderator actions cannot be discussed. My point is that because specific moderator actions cannot be discussed, it is all done in the dark of night. Isn't that pretty much the definition of it? No one can know what happens, because the TOS prohibits it. How would you describe it?

I have no intentions of getting into the factors that led up to the TS/S split but it was quite obvious to all that something had to be done about that forum which was a nightmare for anyone trying to post a legitimate question.

Getting back to this "done in the dark of night" comment, no matter what is said you will still use that as a comeback so basically this is starting to turn into a witch hunt!!!

Why do mods not want the threads? I realize that in some forums, the threads will have very little, if any activity, and as such, will very quickly drop from the first page when one views the forum.

Others will be very active, and others will see moderate activity.

I'm with koko, in that I don't see what the downside is of giving people a place to post their questions or concerns about moderation of a specific forum. If the forum "doesn't need one," then the thread will sit without use.
And that would be a perfect example of why I don't want to get too involved in this.

You immediately turn around and accuse us of not wanting the threads, after I've predicted that would happen, but did not actually say anywhere in my post that was the feeling.

Thanks for proving my point.

I am open to RSSrsvp's opinion that they may not be right for each forum. My response is: isn't that better decided by the posters of that forum by their use or non-use of it, rather than having the forum's moderators speak on behalf of all of that forum's posters?

So, yes, I am utterly open to a dialogue on all aspects of this proposal. But, as always, I'm not just to going to accept opinions without questioning and exploring them, typically from the perspective of empowering the posters as much as possible to create the best FlyerTalk we can be.

So what you are saying is that you COULD answer this question...it's just that you don't care to?
I have my reasons as to why it can be a bad idea. But as kipper has just completely proved my point, I don't see the point of even attempting that dialogue, as it will only be misconstrued.

I have my reasons as to why it can be a bad idea. But as kipper has just completely proved my point, I don't see the point of even attempting that dialogue, as it will only be misconstrued.

Well if you are not even willing to discuss your specific concerns it is impossible for anyone to consider them...or take them into account.

So I am left still waiting for someone, anyone to articulate a down-side to this proposal.

There have been several down sides articulate to this proposal. You appear to be ignoring the ones out there already.

There have been several down sides articulate to this proposal. You appear to be ignoring the ones out there already.

Help me out here.

A forum for moderation discussion is a bad idea, a thread is better: criticism accepted.

A sticky is too intrusive: criticism accepted.

The only other comment I have seen (several times) is that it should be up to the moderator to decide if and what kind of moderation feedback thread should be on 'their' forum. That's an opnion, not a down-side. And I simply respectfully disagree with this opinion based on a few reasons:
1) The posters can decide for themselves if the thread is needed by use or non-use
2) It may well be that the forums that could make the most use of such a thread have mods unwilling to allow one
3) There should be consistent and transparent opportunity for collaborative poster feedback on the day-to-day management of FT across all forums because to do otherwise will lead to confusion, misunderstandings and ill feelings

If I have missed any articulated down-sides to this proposal please do me a favor and point them out to me. I am open to the notion that my reading is indeed overly-selective.

The one size fits all approach being pushed here.

How does a thread to discuss the (visible) 4-5 moderation actions I make a year in the VS forum actually help, when the members already feel they can raise concerns with me?

How does having a thread to discuss the moderation of the Antarctica forum actually help at all?

The one size fits all approach being pushed here.

How does a thread to discuss the (visible) 4-5 moderation actions I make a year in the VS forum actually help, when the members already feel they can raise concerns with me?

How does having a thread to discuss the moderation of the Antarctica forum actually help at all?

Have you considered the possibility that the folks on VS forum might (just might!) welcome and enjoy the opportunity for collaborative input if it was provided? You seem very confident, but how can you know what is in their minds?

And if the thread is of no use to the posters there then it will quietly fade off the front page an into oblivion. Nothing lost for the effort or opportunity.

And even if so, how about one day when you are no longer the benevolent moderator of VS. Perhaps then such a thread would have more utility and it will be there for the posters then.

Again, I see no down-side to offering posters this opportunity in each forum over a 'one-size-does-not-fit-all' complaint.

Only up-side in terms of consistency and opportunity as the posters will make the thread fit however they see fit (even if that means ignoring it!)

I seriously take issue with this statement. You are fully aware that there are decisions made by moderators that we are not allowed to discuss in public! You are trying to take o2k's comments, changing the context of same to your advantage when what o2k has posted is totally appropriate!!!

Now I am completely confused. As far as I know, 02K did, indeed, discuss her decision in public. In fact, she did so on the thread she closed:

As many on the Delta Forum know, DLNYC passed away this weekend.
I am sorry to report that DLNYC has passed away
Let this great thread stand alone as an example of DLNYC's wit and sense of irony.
Thank you for your understanding as I lock the thread in Memoriam to our Flyertalk/Delta Friend. May he Rest in Peace. May his Mother and other family members know how much we will always appreciate his contributions.
Obscure2k
Delta Moderator

Moreover, if you look at the "Premature Evacuation" thread, you will see that nobody asked why the thread was closed. There was no need to -- O2K had given her reason.

Two posters, however, stated that they felt it would be a better memorial to the OP to allow the thread to keep open instead fading into oblivion.

Given all of that, how can this fall into the category of decisions "we are not allowed to discuss in public"? :confused:

The one size fits all approach being pushed here.

How does a thread to discuss the (visible) 4-5 moderation actions I make a year in the VS forum actually help, when the members already feel they can raise concerns with me?

How does having a thread to discuss the moderation of the Antarctica forum actually help at all?

Upon reflection....would it help to have a threshold of activity on a forum to implement the forum moderation thread?

Now I am completely confused. As far as I know, 02K did, indeed, discuss her decision in public. In fact, she did so on the thread she closed:



Moreover, if you look at the "Premature Evacuation" thread, you will see that nobody asked why the thread was closed. There was no need to -- O2K had given her reason.

Two posters, however, stated that they felt it would be a better memorial to the OP to allow the thread to keep open instead fading into oblivion.

Given all of that, how can this fall into the category of decisions "we are not allowed to discuss in public"? :confused:

Dov, that was not what kokonutz implied by the post copied below.


In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(


My comments to kokonutz didn't have to do with the fact that o2k did make a comment on the closed thread but that kokonutz was implying that o2k wasn't willing to give any feedback which as you can see is totally misleading.

Upon reflection....would it help to have a threshold of activity on a forum to implement the forum moderation thread?

By the way, this might come as a shock to you but the DL thread we have been referencing to in many of our posts was not started by a moderator. It was started by RobertS975 a longtime member of the board. At the time the DL mods made the decision to keep the thread open even though we could have simply closed it as per the TOS.

Therefore and not to open a Pandora's Box, I submit to you that any FT member could simply start a similar thread on any forum and if that board's moderators feel that it is appropriate they can simply leave it open. This would not require any action by the TB. @:-)

Have you considered the possibility that the folks on VS forum might (just might!) welcome and enjoy the opportunity for collaborative input if it was provided? You seem very confident, but how can you know what is in their minds?

Just as any successful business knows, listening to and providing channels of feedback on customer service is key. It sounds like some mods are opposed to any effort to give them constructive feedback. If for example the VS forum was pleased with the moderation and gave examples why you'd think the moderator would love that feedback @:-)

Which leads to....

"done in the dark of night" comment that is highly inflammatory.


They do moderate their forums and look for rule violations. They may delete and edit posts and close threads without notice. They may discipline and suspend members who fail to adhere to the rules (see Discipline and Appeal for more information).



On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol (SanDiego1k).


With much respect to RSSrsvp, comments such as first line are the result of the two harshly worded red paragraphs you cite. The lack of transparency, lack of ways to even get a reason why something was edited/removed/locked lead to dark of night type comments.

Example: I have a PM from a moderator threatening to suspend me for "stalking" if I make another response to a question about their actions. Having the ability to (politely & respectfully) discuss the situation in a dedicated thread of moderation would provide a more neutral forum to resolve the issue while educating the larger FlyerTalk community about the decision making process. This greater understanding from both sides will improve our community and reduce the need for moderator intervention in other threads.

With much respect to RSSrsvp, comments such as first line are the result of the two harshly worded red paragraphs you cite. The lack of transparency, lack of ways to even get a reason why something was edited/removed/locked lead to dark of night type comments.

Example: I have a PM from a moderator threatening to suspend me for "stalking" if I make another response to a question about their actions. Having the ability to (politely & respectfully) discuss the situation in a dedicated thread of moderation would provide a more neutral forum to resolve the issue while educating the larger FlyerTalk community about the decision making process. This greater understanding from both sides will improve our community and reduce the need for moderator intervention in other threads.

I simply quoted what appears in the TOS which we are instructed to follow as mods. Please don't shoot the messenger! :)

If you receive a PM from a moderator that states you are stalking another member this is a discussion that should be held in private between that forum's moderators and you. It is simply not fair to the other member involved to have a public dialogue and you know it. If you are not happy with the result you can always appeal to SanDiego1k who is as fair as they come. However I always fall back on the saying, where there is smoke there is fire. I have had several cases over the years where people have stalked other members and were in total denial when confronted by a moderator. @:-)

My comments to kokonutz didn't have to do with the fact that o2k did make a comment on the closed thread but that kokonutz was implying that o2k wasn't willing to give any feedback which as you can see is totally misleading.

I don't like speaking for kokonutz but I believe he was referring to the post O2K made on the "Premature" thread in which she said she would not discuss her decision on the thread but would by PM.

Quite honestly, I found her post odd as nobody had asked her to discuss her decision. She had explained why she closed the other thread and two posters simply expressed their opinions that it would have been a better memorial to leave it open.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?
One could make a similar observation from the counter perspective:
While I have seen all sorts of strong assertions and claimed benefits around this proposal what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a significant upside to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about encouraging posters to utilize the current available modes of communication to provide input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

Calls for greater transparency, accountability and other populist 'goods' imply those attributes are somehow missing or deficient in current forum management. Are they really? And why is more normatively better than the levels we've got?


Let's start with the TS/S split. Not specific moderator action or decisions, but that was, for the most part, done in the dark of night, without telling most posters.

Yes, TOS currently says that specific moderator actions cannot be discussed. My point is that because specific moderator actions cannot be discussed, it is all done in the dark of night. Isn't that pretty much the definition of it? No one can know what happens, because the TOS prohibits it. How would you describe it?I think you're conflating the prohibition on discussing specific actions such as post edits/deletions, mod-to-member PMs, individual member warnings and suspensions with discussion about forum management tools (such as splitting). To be fair, few members ask about the latter because they don't realize that there's a distinction or where the the line might be. I personally don't mind answering PMs about why I moved, merged, renamed or closed threads or why we chose to split TS/S, but only to the extent that I can without violating the directive on member privacy, i.e. disciplinary action.

For the record, prior to shuttering TS/S for reorganization we posted a sticky about it, stating the dates of closure and our reasons for the split. To characterize that notice as 'dark of night' activity puzzles me. Additionally, there is precedent for mod discretion in temporarily closing, splitting or merging forums -- OMNI (by Randy back in 20xx), OMNIlite/PR (more recently) and Midwest/Frontier (by me in August), respectively, come to mind. TS/S is not a special case because of the resulting uproar, it was a hotbed of discontent to begin with.

I have no intentions of getting into the factors that led up to the TS/S split but it was quite obvious to all that something had to be done about that forum which was a nightmare for anyone trying to post a legitimate question.Or trying to moderate.

The volume and tenor of the forum was closing in on a day when it could no longer be moderated. There wasn't enough time in the day to do it properly. The choices really were to to shut it down for good or change the structure to accommodate the needs of different types of posters. We choose the bold solution (listening to our members) rather than taking easy way out (cutting and running). Why the need to second guess our judgment, the CD's and IBs at this junction is mystifying.

You seem very confident, but how can you know what is in their minds?
We could ask the same of you with respect to what The Posters want. And there's the epistemological conundrum.

If you can't respect mods making inferences to the best conclusion about what's best for their forum(s) then we're back to the underlying issue of unresolved mutual mistrust. Until that's fleshed out the rest of this discussion is pointless.

Therefore and not to open a Pandora's Box, I submit to you that any FT member could simply start a similar thread on any forum and if that board's moderators feel that it is appropriate they can simply leave it open. This would not require any action by the TB. @:-)
Likewise mods do not require TB sanction to initiate (or close) discussions of moderation within their own forums, viz. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/872333-omni-moderation-too-hard-too-soft-discuss.html.

Thanks for starting this thread Kokonutz. While I don't believe that every forum needs a thread of this nature, there should be at least one thread where discussion can take place about concerns that general members have.

By the way, this might come as a shock to you but the DL thread we have been referencing to in many of our posts was not started by a moderator. It was started by RobertS975 a longtime member of the board. At the time the DL mods made the decision to keep the thread open even though we could have simply closed it as per the TOS.

Therefore and not to open a Pandora's Box, I submit to you that any FT member could simply start a similar thread on any forum and if that board's moderators feel that it is appropriate they can simply leave it open. This would not require any action by the TB. @:-)

Likewise mods do not require TB sanction to initiate (or close) discussions of moderation within their own forums, viz. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/872333-omni-moderation-too-hard-too-soft-discuss.html.

kokonutz, based on the above two comments I submit to you that this topic is now a moot point. Frankly this is much to do about nothing!!!

kokonutz, based on the above two comments I submit to you that this topic is now a moot point. Frankly this is much to do about nothing!!!

FWIW, I have floated in the private TalkBoard forum the idea to mandate a non-sticky thread for discussion of moderation policy and practices in the forum excluding any discussion of specific past actions but allowing discussion of hypothetical future actions. The second part of this idea is that each forum's moderators would be allowed (as apparently they already are) to allow discussion of specific past actions to whatever extent and under whatever ground rules the forum's moderators see fit, subject to constraints, if any, set by the Community Director.

This version is both innocuous and flexible, IMHO. It could promote valuable feedback for some forums.

We could ask the same of you with respect to what The Posters want. And there's the epistemological conundrum.

If you can't respect mods making inferences to the best conclusion about what's best for their forum(s) then we're back to the underlying issue of unresolved mutual mistrust. Until that's fleshed out the rest of this discussion is pointless.

I submit that it is not the mod's forum. It is the posters' forum.

Or at least it should be. In koko-world it would be. That's what this proposal is all about.

YMMV.

I submit that it is not the mod's forum. It is the posters' forum.
Different sense and referent. (But you knew that. ;))

"... the forums they moderate." Better?

FWIW, I have floated in the private TalkBoard forum the idea to mandate a non-sticky thread for discussion of moderation policy and practices in the forum excluding any discussion of specific past actions but allowing discussion of hypothetical future actions. The second part of this idea is that each forum's moderators would be allowed (as apparently they already are) to allow discussion of specific past actions to whatever extent and under whatever ground rules the forum's moderators see fit, subject to constraints, if any, set by the Community Director.

This version is both innocuous and flexible, IMHO. It could promote valuable feedback for some forums.

^^ Although I'm guessing your excellent proposal will go over like a lead balloon. All but a few of the moderators I've met & interacted with are wonderful, fair, approachable people, but there are others who seem very much afraid of transparency.

Different sense and referent. (But you knew that. ;))

"... the forums they moderate." Better?

I suppose. But I still submit that it ought to be up to the posters in a forum to decide if they'd like to use a moderation thread than up to that forum's moderators to decide if they'd like to have a moderation thread in that forum.

I still have not seen a down-side articulated to giving all (active) forums' posters the opportunity of using a moderation thread.

I submit that it is not the mod's forum. It is the posters' forum.



^

That opinion would earn you a severe reprimand in one forum that I frequent...(or that I used to frequent to be more correct).

Oy, another conspiracy theory? Really?

I am proposing a recommendation for an amendment to the TOS to be considered by the TB. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/17584371-post12.html)

As hard as it might be, can we focus on the proposal rather than the personalities (sort of ironic that *I* am the one saying this to some of the *mods* participating here! :))!

Again: I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

So you're not thinking of requiring the Mods in that forum to participate in that thread and to answer posters complaints?

Congratulations on your windfall, Mike. I really do wish you well and hope your board continues to be a smashing success. ^

Windfall???? If you think anyone is actually profiting from this, you have no clue.

The smashing success was the manner in which the TS/S moderators managed to alienate so many of their users so quickly. And no, there was disciplinary action in regard to me -- I simply took note of the rapidly souring atmosphere (esp. the accumulating body count) and chose to quit posting there. It had reached the point where it was no longer worthy of my contribution.

Travel Underground was created about three weeks later when I was informed that "It is never cool to call out a mod.". In the isolated environment that many FT moderators seem to create for themselves, over time moderation -- and what the moderators want -- becomes an end in itself at the expense of the members. I've seen this happen a number of times over the years in several forums.

The only way this is ever going to be dealt with is to make the moderators answerable to TalkBoard and shine a lot more sunlight into the process. As it is, you have an elected board that is little more than another FT in-crowd. Give TalkBoard some teeth and made the moderators accountable.

So you're not thinking of requiring the Mods in that forum to participate in that thread and to answer posters complaints?

To the best of my knowledge, no member is required to participate in any thread. Some TB members, in fact, rarely post in TB Topics threads.

That does not mean there would be no value to a thread discussing moderation of a particular forum (or, indeed, threads discussing moderation in general).

If Poster A brings up a good point on such a forum, he will most likely be answered with at least one of the following (and perhaps all of them, depending on how many moderators are involved):

1. A respectful response to the point the poster made, either agreeing or disagreeing with him, and outlining the moderator's view of the issue.

2. A snarky response demonstrating that the moderator feels that he is way above any possible disagreement and that the poster is guilty of lese majeste for daring to question and/or disagree with him.

3. No response at all.

Still, by having expressed his own opinion, Poster A will have brought up a point which other members may not have considered. That, in itself, is valuable.

Moreover, the type of response that the moderator makes will reveal a lot about that particular moderator. This, too, is valuable. Indeed, a sufficient number of "I don't give a crap about you" replies from a moderator (or even lack of replies) might make whoever is responsible for moderation -- be it TB, a group of mods, or the CD -- decide that the moderator in question is not an asset to FT and should no longer continue in his positition.

On a different matter which has been raised here, it is not really true that any poster can start such a thread. Yes, it was permitted on the Delta Forum, but might not be on others. In fact, by attempting to start such a thread the poster could well find himself losing his posting rights for having discussed moderation.

Well stated, Dovster.

On a different matter which has been raised here, it is not really true that any poster can start such a thread. Yes, it was permitted on the Delta Forum, but might not be on others. In fact, by attempting to start such a thread the poster could well find himself losing his posting rights for having discussed moderation.

Indeed. That goes to show an issue arising from inconsistency of TOS application. Yet the attempted defense of inconsistency in TOS application is based on "personalities". That sort of inconsistency in application encourages creation of ghettos and cliques on FT and personalization of discussions, all of which are a factor in fostering unfriendly environments.

Windfall???? If you think anyone is actually profiting from this, you have no clue.

The smashing success was the manner in which the TS/S moderators managed to alienate so many of their users so quickly. And no, there was disciplinary action in regard to me -- I simply took note of the rapidly souring atmosphere (esp. the accumulating body count) and chose to quit posting there. It had reached the point where it was no longer worthy of my contribution.

Perhaps that point (of a chilling effect upon a significant proportion of the contributions/contributors) was the desired outcome even as TB wasn't involved in undoing the forum as it was. This way has also had some other consequences including that which has not made TOS enforcement a more consistent matter with less personalization in TOS application.

Travel Underground was created about three weeks later when I was informed that "It is never cool to call out a mod.". In the isolated environment that many FT moderators seem to create for themselves, over time moderation -- and what the moderators want -- becomes an end in itself at the expense of the members. I've seen this happen a number of times over the years in several forums.

The only way this is ever going to be dealt with is to make the moderators answerable to TalkBoard and shine a lot more sunlight into the process. As it is, you have an elected board that is little more than another FT in-crowd. Give TalkBoard some teeth and made the moderators accountable.

TB is also likely to be little more than a reflection of an FT in-crowd, although it's also likely to get some "polarizing personalities" as well.

The Community Director position has some teeth and is there to make the moderators accountable, and that's not likely to change. So making a limited group of FTers accountable to yet another party might end up fostering a situation of "accountable to everyone = (or leading to) accountable to no one". Just something to consider.

Addressing only one thing & speaking as a FTer, not a TB member. I'm glad for the split of TS/S. I had quit going there looking for info because of the utter vitirol & the hijacking of threads. Heck, it made OmniPR look like a piece of cake. :eek: I'm guessing there are others like me as well. So while some will leave FT over the split (which is their right), some will start frequenting TS/S again.

Cheers.

Windfall???? If you think anyone is actually profiting from this, you have no clue.

The smashing success was the manner in which the TS/S moderators managed to alienate so many of their users so quickly. And no, there was disciplinary action in regard to me -- I simply took note of the rapidly souring atmosphere (esp. the accumulating body count) and chose to quit posting there. It had reached the point where it was no longer worthy of my contribution.

Travel Underground was created about three weeks later when I was informed that "It is never cool to call out a mod.". In the isolated environment that many FT moderators seem to create for themselves, over time moderation -- and what the moderators want -- becomes an end in itself at the expense of the members. I've seen this happen a number of times over the years in several forums.

The only way this is ever going to be dealt with is to make the moderators answerable to TalkBoard and shine a lot more sunlight into the process. As it is, you have an elected board that is little more than another FT in-crowd. Give TalkBoard some teeth and made the moderators accountable.

As a member of the TB, this concerns me deeply. If current TOS alienates posters enough to go start their own forums, that could end up being bad, bad news for the future of FT.

If, say, enough UA posters get fed up with mega-threading, they could go start a board, etc, etc. These issue-specific boards have a spotty success record, but just the fact that people feel motivated to go start them tells us we have some work to do.

Meanwhile, one of the 'selling points' of Milepoint is that they are 'friendly,' a thinly veiled assertion of having a different approach to moderation. Of course, the approach there is more in the paid staff direction. A non-starter here.

I think Mike as well as the DL mods and the Cbuzz mods and the old OMNI mods have given us a terrific model to follow in terms of giving posters more ownership over the forums they frequent by allowing collaborative input to day-to-day management.

FT has always been an IBB leader, and in the competitive world of mile travel and points IBBs, this feature would really set FT apart as a cut above in terms of user-friendliness and responsiveness. ^

So you're not thinking of requiring the Mods in that forum to participate in that thread and to answer posters complaints?lol, no, I can't require anyone to do anything. What am I going to do, suspend mods who don't participate!? ;)

No, all the TB can do (right now) is make recommendations regarding the TOS and forum structure. But I would like to think that the mods would all be not only willing but happy to engage in constructive, collaborative feedback from the posters they serve on the forums they moderate.

But I would like to think that the mods would all be not only willing but happy to engage in constructive, collaborative feedback from the posters they serve on the forums they moderate.

koko, I would like to point out to you that although the DL mods were the first to allow this type of mod discussion thread many years ago and we think of ourselves as being pretty lenient we would not hesitate to delete or simply refuse to answer certain questions concerning moderation that would violate the privacy of other members. Therefore, even if you pursue this issue and prevail you should also warn our members that not everything that they question will receive a response from the mods.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas! :)

koko, I would like to point out to you that although the DL mods were the first to allow this type of mod discussion thread many years ago and we think of ourselves as being pretty lenient we would not hesitate to delete or simply refuse to answer certain questions concerning moderation that would violate the privacy of other members. Therefore, even if you pursue this issue and prevail you should also warn our members that not everything that they question will receive a response from the mods.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas! :)

Understood. Does the bolded part below contained in my original proposed amendment address your concern?

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).

we would not hesitate to delete or simply refuse to answer certain questions concerning moderation that would violate the privacy of other members.

I have read that many times on FT. In our dealings over the years, I have always seen you as a straight shooter, so please answer this question: If I post, giving (my side) of how and why I was suspended, haven't I given up any expectation of privacy?

To tell the truth, especially the first suspension I received is one I would love to publicize. Nothing would make me happier than to repost here, the exact e-mail I received, and for the members to judge for themselves if my suspension was justified or completely ridiculous.

I, of course, would have no valid objection if the mods who gave me that suspension were to give any details that I might have ignored. Where then would be the violation of my privacy?

I have read that many times on FT. In our dealings over the years, I have always seen you as a straight shooter, so please answer this question: If I post, giving (my side) of how and why I was suspended, haven't I given up any expectation of privacy?

To tell the truth, especially the first suspension I received is one I would love to publicize. Nothing would make me happier than to repost here, the exact e-mail I received, and for the members to judge for themselves if my suspension was justified or completely ridiculous.

I, of course, would have no valid objection if the mods who gave me that suspension were to give any details that I might have ignored. Where then would be the violation of my privacy?
I see where you are coming from, Dov. Did I ever send you the email Randy sent me suspending me? It's a hoot!

But that's not what this proposal is about. This proposal is about making the day-to-day management of FT more responsive to posters by allowing consistent opportunity for collaborative input.

Inconsistent (and sometimes random) suspension and banning standards are a separate issue for another day. As noted elsewhere, I have some ideas to address that, too. But one thing at a time, and starting with something that imho ought to be a non-controversial no-brainer. :)

kokonutz, based on the above two comments I submit to you that this topic is now a moot point. Frankly this is much to do about nothing!!!

Therefore, even if you pursue this issue and prevail you should also warn our members that not everything that they question will receive a response from the mods.


Understood. Does the bolded part below contained in my original proposed amendment address your concern?

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).
Nice try as I have never stated that this should be a sticky thread nor will I speak for the moderators on other boards. Just because we have allowed it to exist on the DL board does not mean that it should be done forum wide. Please remember that my wording is very clear, "if you pursue this issue and prevail". This does not constitute my blessing for your proposed threads!

I haven't posted on this, but I just don't see the problem.

If the thread isn't needed or isn't popular, it will die -- nobody will post to it.

I'm for such a thing until someone can convince me that it's a bad idea.

I have read that many times on FT. In our dealings over the years, I have always seen you as a straight shooter, so please answer this question: If I post, giving (my side) of how and why I was suspended, haven't I given up any expectation of privacy?

To tell the truth, especially the first suspension I received is one I would love to publicize. Nothing would make me happier than to repost here, the exact e-mail I received, and for the members to judge for themselves if my suspension was justified or completely ridiculous.

I, of course, would have no valid objection if the mods who gave me that suspension were to give any details that I might have ignored. Where then would be the violation of my privacy?

Dov, the TOS which I am sure that you are well versed on is extremely clear.


Discussing Specific Moderator Actions
On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol

Dov, the TOS which I am sure that you are well versed on is extremely clear.


Discussing Specific Moderator Actions
On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol

This, especially if the member who was suspended or disciplined is willing to share their side of the story, is a good example of why some people will think that all moderator actions are hidden. If a member who was suspended is willing to post publically about their suspension, and is willing to allow the moderators to post their perspectives on it as well, why not allow them to do so?

This, especially if the member who was suspended or disciplined is willing to share their side of the story, is a good example of why some people will think that all moderator actions are hidden. If a member who was suspended is willing to post publically about their suspension, and is willing to allow the moderators to post their perspectives on it as well, why not allow them to do so?

I'm sorry but until the TOS is changed I cannot agree to what you are saying so IMHO it is a moot point.

Incidentally are you also saying that a member should or should not make an attempt by PM to discuss an issue with a moderator or that they should simply be posting their objections to a mod's action on one of these proposed threads without first making an attempt to discuss it in private beforehand?

Dov, the TOS which I am sure that you are well versed on is extremely clear.


Discussing Specific Moderator Actions
On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol

Yes, that is what the TOS says. It does not mean, however, that the TOS should not be changed.

Remember, in the 1920s there was a prohibition actually written into the US constitution forbidding the sale of alcohol. That was changed and the constitution is a much more difficult document to amend than the TOS.

Yes, that is what the TOS says. It does not mean, however, that the TOS should not be changed.

Remember, in the 1920s there was a prohibition actually written into the US constitution forbidding the sale of alcohol. That was changed and the constitution is a much more difficult document to amend than the TOS.

You are totally correct in your statement. However until it is changed what you are proposing to do will not be allowed.

One could make a similar observation from the counter perspective:
While I have seen all sorts of strong assertions and claimed benefits around this proposal what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a significant upside to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about encouraging posters to utilize the current available modes of communication to provide input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

Calls for greater transparency, accountability and other populist 'goods' imply those attributes are somehow missing or deficient in current forum management. Are they really? And why is more normatively better than the levels we've got?

I'll give you one example of why public discussion is good. Let's say I hate the mega-threading that goes on in the United forum. I have no idea if anyone else feels the same way. And no one else knows that I feel this way. I can't discuss it publicly, so any talk is squirreled away to PM, and the conversation is then controlled by the person who moderates in a way I disagree with. What are the chances that one person is going to change his mind?

Public, open discussion would allow everyone to get a sense of where opinions lie. If I'm the lone mega-thread hater, discussion would die, and I would have to deal. If there was a majority opinion against the practice, solutions could be worked out that would benefit the membership of the forum. This only happens in an open, collaborative setting.

I think you're conflating the prohibition on discussing specific actions such as post edits/deletions, mod-to-member PMs, individual member warnings and suspensions with discussion about forum management tools (such as splitting). To be fair, few members ask about the latter because they don't realize that there's a distinction or where the the line might be. I personally don't mind answering PMs about why I moved, merged, renamed or closed threads or why we chose to split TS/S, but only to the extent that I can without violating the directive on member privacy, i.e. disciplinary action.

I hope these threads (if they are created) would not be used to ask about specific deletions/suspensions. I do agree those situations are better handled in private. I'm thinking they would be more about larger, more general issues.

For the record, prior to shuttering TS/S for reorganization we posted a sticky about it, stating the dates of closure and our reasons for the split. To characterize that notice as 'dark of night' activity puzzles me. Additionally, there is precedent for mod discretion in temporarily closing, splitting or merging forums -- OMNI (by Randy back in 20xx), OMNIlite/PR (more recently) and Midwest/Frontier (by me in August), respectively, come to mind. TS/S is not a special case because of the resulting uproar, it was a hotbed of discontent to begin with.

I don't think people are disputing that you gave advanced warning of your decision and actions. I think they are upset with the lack of warning that the process was occurring, before those decisions were made.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). Which (to you) is more important? Consistency or responsiveness to a forum's posters?

Suppose for a minute the TOS requires posters to "Post your inquiry in a relevant thread. If no such thread exists, start a new thread." Most on FT view this as "requiring" mega-threads. Any new thread on subject X is merged into a single thread. This keeps the forums tidy with information is in a single, easy-to-find thead. While we're "supposing" here, I'll add that the search function has been improved, making it simple to search a mega-thread and quickly find information you need.

But posters in one forum hate mega threads, as demonstrated by posts in the forum's "Discuss how mods can help improve the forum" thread. They would rather see 100 threads on the same topic started by different members, containing the same responses. This is viewed as "friendly" or "more personal" as each member receives individual responses. Should all forums be required to merge into mega-threads?

I'm sorry but until the TOS is changed I cannot agree to what you are saying so IMHO it is a moot point.

Incidentally are you also saying that a member should or should not make an attempt by PM to discuss an issue with a moderator or that they should simply be posting their objections to a mod's action on one of these proposed threads without first making an attempt to discuss it in private beforehand?
My question is to see if moderators would be open to it, if the TOS could/would be changed.

I'm not saying not to send a PM, but if you feel your suspension or whatever was very out of line, or you want to let everyone know what you did, so they can learn from your mistakes, and the TOS has been revised to allow for this, why not post it out there for everyone?
You are totally correct in your statement. However until it is changed what you are proposing to do will not be allowed.
What is your opinion of changing the TOS?

By soliciting input from a wide range of people who are in those groups likely to be affected by a change like changing this portion of the TOS, the end result is likely to be something that most can embrace and not feel that it was done without some notice or input from stakeholders.

My question is to see if moderators would be open to it, if the TOS could/would be changed. I personally wouldn't. I've seen too many members presenting what they have done as though they have been wronged - even to the point of bare-facedly lying about what they have done - when they think they can influence the court of public opinion. Many people just cannot accept that their behaviour has been at odds with what we expect on FT.

Sadly, we'd then get people who are pretty negative to mods automatically assuming that the mods are incorrect. We've already seen how the words of moderators are interpreted in this thread by some people to the worst possible meaning.

I don't think it would be good for either members or mods to do this. FT is not about disputes about who did what and who is lying. It's about travel, points and miles.

I personally wouldn't. I've seen too many members presenting what they have done as though they have been wronged - even to the point of bare-facedly lying about what they have done - when they think they can influence the court of public opinion. Many people just cannot accept that their behaviour has been at odds with what we expect on FT.

Sadly, we'd then get people who are pretty negative to mods automatically assuming that the mods are incorrect. We've already seen how the words of moderators are interpreted in this thread by some people to the worst possible meaning.

I don't think it would be good for either members or mods to do this. FT is not about disputes about who did what and who is lying. It's about travel, points and miles.

When everything is done in secrecy, it's easy for people (on both sides) to distort the truth. Allowing some sunlight into the process would be best for both general members and moderators over the long haul.

Which (to you) is more important? Consistency or responsiveness to a forum's posters?



What is important to me is that posters in every forum have a consistent opportunity to have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis.

So maybe forum A's posters love the mega-threading and don't mind how disjointed they become.

Maybe forum B's posters despise the mega-threading and would prefer that every thread stand even if information is sometimes repeated....maybe the forum is slow enough that this does not bug.

Maybe forum C's posters work with the mods to come up with a system where mega threads are timed, such that a common issue exists in a mega-thread for six months then a new mega-thread on that issue is started for the next six months.

Maybe forum D's posters and mods collaboratively develop something neither you nor I can conceive of alone right here right now.

The beauty of this approach is that it consistently and uniformly lets each forum's posters work directly with each forum's moderators to develop a unique management style that works best for that forum's posters as determined by a collaborative process between the mods and the posters rather than by fiat by the moderators.

Hmmm. And many of us manage to do that without TB mandated threads :confused:

My question is to see if moderators would be open to it, if the TOS could/would be changed.

I'm not saying not to send a PM, but if you feel your suspension or whatever was very out of line, or you want to let everyone know what you did, so they can learn from your mistakes, and the TOS has been revised to allow for this, why not post it out there for everyone?

You didn't answer my question, do you feel it is appropriate to simply post away on a public board instead of first trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator?

What is your opinion of changing the TOS?

By soliciting input from a wide range of people who are in those groups likely to be affected by a change like changing this portion of the TOS, the end result is likely to be something that most can embrace and not feel that it was done without some notice or input from stakeholders.

For the record I am opposed to changing the TOS.

When everything is done in secrecy, it's easy for people (on both sides) to distort the truth. Allowing some sunlight into the process would be best for both general members and moderators over the long haul.
Or just result in interminable wrangling from those who can never, ever accept that their warnings/suspensions were warranted.

But hey, don't let my direct experience interfere with your perception. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who have come back and acknowledged they were over the top. Most folks don't respond, while a number will argue until they are blue in the face that somehow, I was wrong. I can also count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions I've had over-turned.

Hmmm. And many of us manage to do that without TB mandated threads :confused:

Were posters consulted in these instances, or was it a unilateral decision by the moderators?

How do the moderators know this is how the majority of the forum wants these things handled?

Or just result in interminable wrangling from those who can never, ever accept that their warnings/suspensions were warranted.

But hey, don't let my direct experience interfere with your perception. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who have come back and acknowledged they were over the top. Most folks don't respond, while a number will argue until they are blue in the face that somehow, I was wrong. I can also count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions I've had over-turned.

Number of suspensions overturned is not exactly the metric I'd use to show how well someone is performing as a mod.

Hmmm. And many of us manage to do that without TB mandated threads :confused:

How can you possibly know that for sure?

I consider you a very good, conscientious and fair moderator. I believe you try very hard to give the posters in the forums you moderate the sort of management they want. But unless a fully safe and collaborative system is put in place, you can never know for sure that the posters are getting the management they want.

Look at it this way: if you are correct and this system is implemented it will result in one of two things: Either the thread will quickly fall from the front page of the forums you moderate never to be seen again or it will be filled with compliments and kudos on the way the forum is managed because it is done exactly the way the posters want.

Again, there is no down-side potential to this idea. And lots of up-side potential.

Number of suspensions overturned is not exactly the metric I'd use to show how well someone is performing as a mod.
No, but quoting it did stop you accusing me that all of those complaining about my actions had a point, which I knew would be the knee jerk position to the point I was making.

Besides, you make complaints about lack of accountability, and then you tell me I should never have a decision over-turned? Seriously? You want accountability, but you expect us to be perfect? :confused:

Were posters consulted in these instances, or was it a unilateral decision by the moderators?

How do the moderators know this is how the majority of the forum wants these things handled?
Because they'd hear from the members if the members were unhappy about how the forum was being run.

How can you possibly know that for sure?

I consider you a very good, conscientious and fair moderator. I believe you try very hard to give the posters in the forums you moderate the sort of management they want. But unless a fully safe and collaborative system is put in place, you can never know for sure that the posters are getting the management they want.

Look at it this way: if you are correct and this system is implemented it will result in one of two things: Either the thread will quickly fall from the front page of the forums you moderate never to be seen again or it will be filled with compliments and kudos on the way the forum is managed because it is done exactly the way the posters want.

Again, there is no down-side potential to this idea. And lots of up-side potential.
Or it will become the hang out ground for the minority who want the forum to be run in a different way, but where the majority don't want that to happen so they'll just spend their time quarterbacking in the thread to no effect, getting increasingly more and more bitter. It's a bit like how TB becomes the hang out place for those bitter about moderation?

You appear to live in a perfect world, where all people are reasonable. That, sadly, is not my experience. Some people just can't and won't accept boundaries - will they koko? ;)

Because they'd hear from the members if the members were unhappy about how the forum was being run.

I personally think you are wrong about this.

I think that many (most?) posters are under the (mistaken, btw, according to the current TOS) impression that ANY public discussion of moderation is strictly forbidden. I personally think some mods mistakenly believe this too, btw.

By creating a specific thread for collaborative feedback and discussion of a forum's day-to-day management you will get a robust group dynamic that simply cannot exist via one-to-one PMs. You will also get better participation as posters come to realize that their input is not only allowed, but can make a difference to their FT experience on a daily basis.

Either that or, as I say, the thread will fall away and/or be filled with compliments.

Win-win.

Or it will become the hang out ground for the minority who want the forum to be run in a different way, but where the majority don't want that to happen so they'll just spend their time quarterbacking in the thread to no effect, getting increasingly more and more bitter. It's a bit like how TB becomes the hang out place for those bitter about moderation?

You appear to live in a perfect world, where all people are reasonable. That, sadly, is not my experience. Some people just can't and won't accept boundaries - will they koko? ;)

koko, jenbel is being realistic in her assessment. We have to deal with taking care of the needs of the vast majority of FT's membership and not the tiny minority who are always complaining (pardon my bluntness). Remember that the key word here is realistic!

I personally think you are wrong about this.

I think that many (most?) posters are under the (mistaken, btw, according to the current TOS) impression that ANY public discussion of moderation is strictly forbidden. I personally think some mods mistakenly believe this too, btw.

By creating a specific thread for collaborative feedback and discussion of a forum's day-to-day management you will get a robust group dynamic that simply cannot exist via one-to-one PMs. You will also get better participation as posters come to realize that their input is not only allowed, but can make a difference to their FT experience on a daily basis.

Either that or, as I say, the thread will fall away and/or be filled with compliments.

Win-win.
Well, I guess in a situation where it's your beliefs against my experience, my experience won't carry as much weight as your beliefs.

Par for the course on this thread.

Or it will become the hang out ground for the minority who want the forum to be run in a different way, but where the majority don't want that to happen so they'll just spend their time quarterbacking in the thread to no effect, getting increasingly more and more bitter. It's a bit like how TB becomes the hang out place for those bitter about moderation?So now we come to it. It's not that the posters don't trust the mods so much as the mods don't trust the posters. I....seeee. :p

Please re-read the proposed TOS amendment. It makes perfectly clear that abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted and that discussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed.

Further, I think you would be surprised...when people are allowed to say how they think and feel, even if it is not the majority opinion, they feel better about the final decisions taken. It's all about having a say, even if your say is not the final say, and it leads to far greater user satisfaction.

You appear to live in a perfect world, where all people are reasonable. That, sadly, is not my experience. Some people just can't and won't accept boundaries - will they koko? ;)
I live in a world where when I see something that can be done better to improve a place I love, I push hard to make it happen.

Especially when it makes good sense, will make FT more competitive by being more responsive to posters and will improve the overall FT experience.

If you mean to imply that I am a trouble-maker because I don't think that the status quo is perfect, then I wear that as a badge of honor.

Turning your point around at you, you appear to live in a world where you think FT is perfect. Where you know and do what is best for the forums you moderate. Maybe you do. But...here's the thing....maybe not. Why not find out?

If we change this TOS and the threads turn into a nightmare of non-constructive gripping then the TOS is easily changed again based on the lessons learnt.

But based on the experiences in the forums where this has been done so far, I doubt it will come to that.

koko, jenbel is being realistic in her assessment. We have to deal with taking care of the needs of the vast majority of FT's membership and not the tiny minority who are always complaining (pardon my bluntness). Remember that the key word here is realistic!

And yet that is not what has happened in the DL forum moderation thread. @:-)

You didn't answer my question, do you feel it is appropriate to simply post away on a public board instead of first trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator?



For the record I am opposed to changing the TOS.
In some cases, yes. In cases where a poster feels a moderator is simply taking an opposing viewpoint or deleting posts because that poster has previously disagreed with a moderator, then yes. I can completely understand why a poster would refrain from trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator and would opt to post something in public, in part because that way, everyone can see what a poster said to a moderator, and if they choose, what the moderator says to the poster, and everyone can see how both parties act.

So now we come to it. It's not that the posters don't trust the mods so much as the mods don't trust the posters. I....seeee. :p All I'm doing is sharing with you my experience as a moderator.

You can chose to mischaracterise that, but it does exactly underline why earlier in the thread I chose not to do that, and I'm now wondering why I even bothered.

The issue is that your mind is already made up. You won't listen to our genuine concerns because they will not outweigh your belief that this will be good:
Further, I think you would be surprised...when people are allowed to say how they think and feel, even if it is not the majority opinion, they feel better about the final decisions taken. It's all about having a say, even if your say is not the final say, and it leads to far greater user satisfaction.

That's only your opinion. Please feel free to cite some evidence to support that viewpoint. I've seen the very opposite happen, where the users needs cannot be met, and they get increasingly frustrated instead.

But, as I say, your mind is made up. I'm disappointed that I tried to engage, it's pointless - and of course, all the usual mischaracterisations and trying to put the worst spin possible onto my words will now happen, as I predicted up thread :(

All I'm doing is sharing with you my experience as a moderator.

You can chose to mischaracterise that, but it does exactly underline why earlier in the thread I chose not to do that, and I'm now wondering why I even bothered.

The issue is that your mind is already made up. You won't listen to our genuine concerns because they will not outweigh your belief that this will be good:


That's only your opinion. Please feel free to cite some evidence to support that viewpoint. I've seen the very opposite happen, where the users needs cannot be met, and they get increasingly frustrated instead.

But, as I say, your mind is made up. I'm disappointed that I tried to engage, it's pointless - and of course, all the usual mischaracterisations and trying to put the worst spin possible onto my words will now happen, as I predicted up thread :(
lol, oh, Jenbel, let's not be so hangdog, shall we!?

You are so afraid of a backlash to your opinion that you seem reticent to share that opinion. That's no way to be! If you have examples and facts to bring to the discussion, bring them. I swear I don't bite!

But if you are just going to say "I'm a moderator, so I KNOW this is a bad idea so you just have to believe me," well, no. Make your case!

And this is not directed at you, necessarily, but look, I get it that the notion of having these threads is going to make some folks nervous. No one wants to deal with criticisms...often even when it is constructive.

If I were a moderator, I would view this proposal as a wonderful opportunity to engage with the posters in my forum, not as a burden or nuisance. But then I am not someone who has spent years as a moderator doing things a certain way.

I never expected this proposal to be very popular with moderators. It opens them to some amounts of accountability and might make them change 'the way it has always been done' in their day-to-day management of forums. But if we want to make FT more responsive to what the posters want, that's what it will take.

For moderators who are doing a good job of managing the way the posters want, though, or for moderators like RSSrsvp whose forums already have this mechanism in place, it will mean nothing, other than validating that you are doing things right.

Number of suspensions overturned is not exactly the metric I'd use to show how well someone is performing as a mod.


The appeals process has a reputation for being extremely non-responsive, to the point of being pretty much a joke.

I hope these threads (if they are created) would not be used to ask about specific deletions/suspensions. I do agree those situations are better handled in private. I'm thinking they would be more about larger, more general issues.I'll bet the farm that no matter how clearly stated up front the intended purpose and scope of such a thread, it will slide into one about specific actions. Resulting in, of course, moderators moderating threads about moderation!

I don't think people are disputing that you gave advanced warning of your decision and actions. I think they are upset with the lack of warning that the process was occurring, before those decisions were made.Acceptance of the TOS is a condition of membership. How anyone can be ignorant of the warning-suspension process when it's clearly outlined in the TOS is perhaps the better question to delve into.

Furthermore, when we post on thread warnings, that's notification that the process is occurring. When we issue formal warnings via PM, that's notification that the process is occurring. So when we reach the point of a 7-day, 30-day or permanent suspension, plenty of prior notification has been served that the process is occurring. What the heck else are we supposed to do about notifications, DC, dress 'em up with frosting and candy buttons and deliver it via owl post? *LOL*

Being absurd here is part of my point, actually because at what point does it become absurd to keep advancing an agenda of moderator accountability if members fail to be follow the rules they originally agreed to?

The appeals process has a reputation for being extremely non-responsive, to the point of being pretty much a joke.

I've not had experience personally with the process, but I've had a few PMs sent to me describing exactly what you say here.

(Looking at your signature: I've avoided the TS/S forum since the split and since it's impossible to post my true feelings about the TSA and it's employees there without risking an imposed holiday.)

You didn't answer my question, do you feel it is appropriate to simply post away on a public board instead of first trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator?


In some cases, yes. In cases where a poster feels a moderator is simply taking an opposing viewpoint or deleting posts because that poster has previously disagreed with a moderator, then yes. I can completely understand why a poster would refrain from trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator and would opt to post something in public, in part because that way, everyone can see what a poster said to a moderator, and if they choose, what the moderator says to the poster, and everyone can see how both parties act.

So hypothetically speaking if you had a post deleted on an existing board on FT that did not have a mod discussion thread which would you do:
1) contact the moderator privately
2) start your own thread voicing your disagreement with the moderator's decision

And yet that is not what has happened in the DL forum moderation thread. @:-)

Please elaborate on this statement as it is ambiguous at best.

Acceptance of the TOS is a condition of membership. How anyone can be ignorant of the warning-suspension process when it's clearly outlined in the TOS is perhaps the better question to delve into.

Furthermore, when we post on thread warnings, that's notification that the process is occurring. When we issue formal warnings via PM, that's notification that the process is occurring. So when we reach the point of a 7-day, 30-day or permanent suspension, plenty of prior notification has been served that the process is occurring. What the heck else are we supposed to do about notifications, DC, dress 'em up with frosting and candy buttons and deliver it via owl post? *LOL*

Being absurd here is part of my point, actually because at what point does it become absurd to keep advancing an agenda of moderator accountability if members fail to be follow the rules they originally agreed to?

Wow. Did you just read the word "warning" and then go off on that rant?

The warning/suspension system was not was I was talking about at all.

What is important to me is that posters in every forum have a consistent opportunity to have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis.
We already have this.

I've not had experience personally with the process, but I've had a few PMs sent to me describing exactly what you say here.

Appeals come to me (if the member follows the instructions given in the FT Guidelines, also given them in the suspension note). I am unaware of one single person who has appealed in the past 11 months who has yet to receive a response. Certainly there are those who take colorful issue with the response and might not consider it satisfactory - but that's a different matter.

Appeals come to me. I am unaware of one single person who has appealed in the past 11 months who has yet to receive a response. Certainly there are those who take colorful issue with the response and might not consider it satisfactory - but that's a different matter.

To be fair, Carol, I haven't received a single PM where the suspension / incident occurred after you became Community Director.

So for not being specific about that, I apologize.

Wow. Did you just read the word "warning" and then go off on that rant?

The warning/suspension system was not was I was talking about at all.

I'm sorry. You're right. You were referring to a different process -- forum management, specifically forum subdivision.

It's become clear that members are unaware that mods have a number of tools and additional BB permissions that we don't use often. Merge and delete (threads or posts) are probably the best known examples of built in menu options we may select from to keep the flow of discussion smooth and placement of topics tidy. I imagine those tools seem unremarkable and uncontroversial because they are so common? But that we may also elect to subdivide a forum to keep the flow of discussion smooth and topic placement tidy is somehow controversial or overreaching? Were posters upset because they didn't know the extent of permissions and tools available to us or because they weren't notified in greater detail about what we planned to do? (No, these aren't rhetorical questions; yes, I care about what the answers are.) That we chose to avail ourselves of existing management tools and methods for the explicit purpose of doing our jobs was rational under the circumstances.

What is important to me is that posters in every forum have a consistent opportunity to have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis.

We already have this.

As noted, some forums have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis. That is not a consistent opportunity.

Appeals come to me (if the member follows the instructions given in the FT Guidelines, also given them in the suspension note). I am unaware of one single person who has appealed in the past 11 months who has yet to receive a response. Certainly there are those who take colorful issue with the response and might not consider it satisfactory - but that's a different matter.

Hm. Is there a statute of limitations on appeals? I'd like to appeal a couple of my suspensions from 5 or 7 years ago.

I'm sorry. You're right. You were referring to a different process -- forum management, specifically forum subdivision.

It's become clear that members are unaware that mods have a number of tools and additional BB permissions that we don't use often. Merge and delete (threads or posts) are probably the best known examples of built in menu options we may select from to keep the flow of discussion smooth and placement of topics tidy. I imagine those tools seem unremarkable and uncontroversial because they are so common? But that we may also elect to subdivide a forum to keep the flow of discussion smooth and topic placement tiday is somehow controversial or overreaching? Were posters upset because they didn't know the extent of permissions and tools available to us or because they weren't notified in greater detail about what we planned to do? (No, these aren't rhetorical questions; yes, I care about what the answers are.) That we chose to avail ourselves of existing management tools and methods for the explicit purpose of doing our jobs was rational under the circumstances.

I think that's probably it. I also bet posters would have wished to have more input in the process that transformed a forum many were very passionate about.

Note: I'm glad there was a change. TS/S was becoming unreadable. However, it makes me wary about how the combination of the CO/UA forum is going to play out. Will the mods there ask for input on how the members want their forum to be run? Or will they just institute the policies they feel are best.

So hypothetically speaking if you had a post deleted on an existing board on FT that did not have a mod discussion thread which would you do:
1) contact the moderator privately
2) start your own thread voicing your disagreement with the moderator's decision
Right now, considering the TOS, if I wanted to voice any concern about it, I'd be limited to contacting the moderator only. If the moderator didn't respond, or was really rather nasty about it, then my only other option would be to contact the CD.

If the board did have a thread, perhaps I'd post a question there, inquiring as to why a post was deleted, and I would hope that the moderator would post their answer in a polite manner.
We already have this.
How?

Many people just cannot accept that their behaviour has been at odds with what we expect on FT.

This is very common. Some people like to annoy readers, or at the very least they are indifferent to whether their posts annoy readers. When challenged about this, they will often reply "I have a right to post whatever I want". This, I submit, is the hallmark of a value-destroying member. FT is better without such attitudes. If you see any part of yourself in this, please try to re-read your posts and soften them before pressing Submit.

When everything is done in secrecy, it's easy for people (on both sides) to distort the truth. Allowing some sunlight into the process would be best for both general members and moderators over the long haul.

+1

I think that many (most?) posters are under the (mistaken, btw, according to the current TOS) impression that ANY public discussion of moderation is strictly forbidden. I personally think some mods mistakenly believe this too, btw.

+1 and I am hoping for greater clarity on this issue in a future TOS.

when people are allowed to say how they think and feel, even if it is not the majority opinion, they feel better about the final decisions taken. It's all about having a say, even if your say is not the final say, and it leads to far greater user satisfaction.

+1

I'll bet the farm that no matter how clearly stated up front the intended purpose and scope of such a thread, it will slide into one about specific actions.

That's a reasonable concern. Which is why the version I posted a day or two ago addresses it:

FWIW, I have floated in the private TalkBoard forum the idea to mandate a non-sticky thread for discussion of moderation policy and practices in the forum excluding any discussion of specific past actions but allowing discussion of hypothetical future actions. The second part of this idea is that each forum's moderators would be allowed (as apparently they already are) to allow discussion of specific past actions to whatever extent and under whatever ground rules the forum's moderators see fit, subject to constraints, if any, set by the Community Director.

This version is both innocuous and flexible, IMHO. It could promote valuable feedback for some forums.

In other words, the forum's moderators are free to constrain or prohibit discussion of specific past actions as needed to avoid excessive moderation of the thread about moderation. In my experience, it takes only two weeks for members to learn to post within new constraints. Two weeks of diligent coaching of posters can yield long-term peace in the forum.

If the board did have a thread, perhaps I'd post a question there, inquiring as to why a post was deleted, and I would hope that the moderator would post their answer in a polite manner.


So hypothetically speaking if the board does have a mod discussion thread like the DL forum and you asked the question on that thread and the mod gave you a polite answer that still wasn't to your liking would the issue end there?

Were posters consulted in these instances, or was it a unilateral decision by the moderators?Not answering for Jen but in high volume forums such as TS/S or OMNI the hundreds (or thousands, depending) of RBPs mods receive throughout the year obviate the need for additional consultation on most decisions. Mods in larger forums also receive hundreds of unsolicited PMs throughout the year, some of which provide detailed feedback or deployable suggestions. Other than maintaining a forum glossary and applying the TOS, TS/S mods left it to member discretion to create the kind of content they felt was useful. During the run up to and in the aftermath of National Opt Out Day, members built and maintained databases, launch protest campaigns, collaborated on leaflet designs and on and on -- all without input, permission or interference from mods. Likewise, sometimes it makes sense for mods to make unilateral decisions about the forums they moderate. There's nothing nefarious behind such decisions.

How do the moderators know this is how the majority of the forum wants these things handled?Because they're not shy about using the RBP button or sending PMs to communicate their desires and complaints!

Not answering for Jen but in high volume forums such as TS/S or OMNI hundreds (or thousands, depending) RBPs received throughout the year obviate the need for additional consultation on most decisions. Mods in larger forums also receive hundreds of unsolicited PMs throughout the year some of which provide detailed feedback or deployable suggestions. Other than maintaining a forum glossary and applying the TOS, TS/S mods left it to member discretion to create the kind of content they felt was useful. During the run up to and in the aftermath of National Opt Out Day, members built and maintained databases, launch protest campaigns, collaborated on leaflet designs and on and on -- all without input, permission or interference from mods. Likewise, sometimes it makes sense for mods to make unilateral decisions about the forums they moderate. There's nothing nefarious behind such decisions.

Because they're not shy about using the RBP button or sending PMs to communicate their desires and complaints!
With respect, this proposal is about collaborative input. What you describe is mostly one way and/or one-on-one input.

Relying only on RBPs and PMs does not give posters the opportunity to build on each others' ideas. And I imagine it is overwhelmingly negative. Looking at the DL and OMNI moderation discussion threads, I see many positive contributions by posters in response to questions and complaints by other posters. That sort of collaborative effort and interaction builds bonds and a sense of forum ownership among the posters and legitimacy for the management decisions that are ultimately taken.

So hypothetically speaking if the board does have a mod discussion thread like the DL forum and you asked the question on that thread and the mod gave you a polite answer that still wasn't to your liking would the issue end there?

"Hypothetically," I'd think it did end there, at least on my part.

What is important to me is that posters in every forum have a consistent opportunity to have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis. We already have this.As noted, some forums have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis. That is not a consistent opportunity.I'm not sold on the consistency as virtue argument but let's humor you by supposing that I am. :)

1) Member PMs mod(s) with suggestion(s) on how to better manage the forum.
2) Mod(s) reply back.
3) *bang* Collaboration in its most atomic form -- a method readily and consistently available across all forums to all registered members.

Whether or how discussions evolve beyond the atomic depend on more factors than TB can reasonably address in a single proposal. If it comes to pass that the CD recommends all moderated forums institute some kind of mod discussion thread then we have an additional method of collaboration to the mix. To suggest that what is already in place is neither collaborative nor consistent is, respectfully, uninformed opinion.

I think that's probably it. I also bet posters would have wished to have more input in the process that transformed a forum many were very passionate about.

Note: I'm glad there was a change. TS/S was becoming unreadable.Thanks for hanging in there with me, DC, and permitting me the opportunity reply, ask for more clarification and reply some more. Also appreciate your candor about the change and I hope it keeps working for you.

Some people like to annoy readers, or at the very least they are indifferent to whether their posts annoy readers. When challenged about this, they will often reply "I have a right to post whatever I want". This, I submit, is the hallmark of a value-destroying member. FT is better without such attitudes. If you see any part of yourself in this, please try to re-read your posts and soften them before pressing Submit.If I had a nickel for every comment about censorship, violation of First Amendment rights, etc., I'd be ... rolling in quarters. @:-)

+1 and I am hoping for greater clarity on this issue in a future TOS.
+2.

Looking at the DL and OMNI moderation discussion threads, I see many positive contributions by posters in response to questions and complaints by other posters. That sort of collaborative effort and interaction builds bonds and a sense of forum ownership among the posters and legitimacy for the management decisions that are ultimately taken.Those threads required an enormous amount of time, well above what we already give. Not every mod or group of mods has it to spare.

Number of suspensions overturned is not exactly the metric I'd use to show how well someone is performing as a mod.

To be fair, Carol, I haven't received a single PM where the suspension / incident occurred after you became Community Director.



Randy was a busy man and was not always as responsive as many of us would have liked him to be. And being the person who likes to focus on the positive, he was very averse to challenging or reprimanding moderators much to the frustration of a small percentage of members who presented cases of moderator abuse.

Today, SanDiego1K is much more engaged and seems to be making decisions at a faster pace, so I think that a lot of this mistrust of moderators is from the past. That said, I strongly believe that lack of transparency is one of the negative aspects of FlyerTalk and hope proposals such as this one will become policy. I'd also be for a customer service oriented feedback system for moderators. A quick note on why something was deleted should be policy for moderators to send when taking action.

"Hypothetically," I'd think it did end there, at least on my part.

So "hypothetically", do you think you would consider my typical type of response polite when this "hypothetical" question was asked?

Those threads required an enormous amount of time, well above what we already give. Not every mod or group of mods has it to spare.

Let me remind all of you that FT's moderators are volunteers. We have day jobs and personal lives also and there is only so much that you can realistically expect as such. All in all I would state for the record that the mods do a great job. ^

Is everyone satisifed? Obviously the answer is no but I submit to you that the overwhelming majority of FT's members are. Incidentally, food for thought, how many of FT's members actually cared enough to vote for the TB elections. @:-)

Understood. Does the bolded part below contained in my original proposed amendment address your concern?

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).Having been a referee for almost 3 decades I have always seen being a moderator somewhat similar although there is a lot more being a librarian involved than athletic prowness.

Besides disagreeing with the sticky part the only thing I believe it is missing is some teeth for those that for whatever reason desire to have repeated Eric Cartman moments. Post deletion IME is not enough and I would hate to send somebody off for continued infractions in a thread they believed would only lead to a post deletion due to the TOS writing.

I would suggest inserting something that would cover those very few who would desire to ruin something that "potentially" might assist FT going forward (emphasis on potentially.) It probably should surprise nobody but actions that a moderator may have taken have led to multiple cussing emails, having their email address registered to porn sites and/or even physical threats.

Since SanDiego1K has already stated in this thread that she is committed to being more responsive than Randy might have been (and I will agree although have read somewhere that someone did not receive a response) there really isn't a worry IME that a moderator would "potentially" overstep their bounds. If the individual did it is simple enough to send an appeal.

Back to being a referee. You can complain about the referee but not publicly, especially right after they blew the whistle. The complaint must be done in private with the league authorities. If done publicly in a professional league one would have to pay a fine sanctioned by the league governing authority. Amateur leagues have sanctions that do not involve money for a violation.

If referees are found to be overstepping their bounds or not properly applying the "Laws of the game"they are removed from any further assignments. As long as I have been a volunteer moderator Randy and now SanDiegoIK have done the same for moderators. (Note this is not implying in anyway that every moderator who has had that title removed from under their name was forcibly removed. Many left for other reasons just as referees quit officiating.)

Footnote -- Moderators advise for TOS input. The final decision has always rested at the top. IIRC the first TOS was written before there were moderators.

I keep reading this recurring theme of "Mods need to be accountable..." which frustrates me somewhat. There appears to be this insinuation that we aren't.

The last time I checked we were volunteers. And we volunteer to Moderate on a IBB, which at the end of the day is a part of a large, online business. Designed to generate a profit.

The business gets to make the rules. It's their gold. I have no problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't have volunteered in the first place. Or if the rules or environment changed and I didn't agree with them (or it), then again, free to leave.

My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

Koko, as hard as you are campaigning for your cause (crusade) and I admire you for it, I disagree with just about everything you're fighting for.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if I had any influence over IB, I'd campaign with equal voracity to eliminate TB tomorrow. Pointless existence if you ask me...

Having been a referee for almost 3 decades I have always seen being a moderator somewhat similar although there is a lot more being a librarian involved than athletic prowness.

Besides disagreeing with the sticky part the only thing I believe it is missing is some teeth for those that for whatever reason desire to have repeated Eric Cartman moments. Post deletion IME is not enough and I would hate to send somebody off for continued infractions in a thread they believed would only lead to a post deletion due to the TOS writing.

I would suggest inserting something that would cover those very few who would desire to ruin something that "potentially" might assist FT going forward (emphasis on potentially.) It probably should surprise nobody but actions that a moderator may have taken have led to multiple cussing emails, having their email address registered to porn sites and/or even physical threats.

Since SanDiego1K has already stated in this thread that she is committed to being more responsive than Randy might have been (and I will agree although have read somewhere that someone did not receive a response) there really isn't a worry IME that a moderator would "potentially" overstep their bounds. If the individual did it is simple enough to send an appeal.

Back to being a referee. You can complain about the referee but not publicly, especially right after they blew the whistle. The complaint must be done in private with the league authorities. If done publicly in a professional league one would have to pay a fine sanctioned by the league governing authority. Amateur leagues have sanctions that do not involve money for a violation.

If referees are found to be overstepping their bounds or not properly applying the "Laws of the game"they are removed from any further assignments. As long as I have been a volunteer moderator Randy and now SanDiegoIK have done the same for moderators. (Note this is not implying in anyway that every moderator who has had that title removed from under their name was forcibly removed. Many left for other reasons just as referees quit officiating.)

Footnote -- Moderators advise for TOS input. The final decision has always rested at the top. IIRC the first TOS was written before there were moderators.

Given that a change in administration here has made the management more responsive, and given that there is a strong precedent (and perhaps some valid reasons) for handling these matters privately, both on other Internet bulletin boards as well as extra-online activities like sports leagues, perhaps this topic isn't something that really needs addressing at this time.

we volunteer to Moderate on a IBB, which at the end of the day is a part of a large, online business. Designed to generate a profit.

(snip)

My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

Have you ever asked yourself why you volunteer your time and effort to "a large, online business" which is "designed to generate a profit"?

If you think about it, it is actually a very strange thing to do. You clearly are not doing it for the good of the membership because you admit that you are not accountable to the average member and would even like to get rid of the membership's only elected body.

Do you do volunteer work for General Electric, Deutsche Bank, Royal Shell, or any other for-profit business?

I certainly can not talk about you, specifically, as I don't even know you, but there are some moderators who get "paid" by ego-enhancement and a (largely imagined) feeling of power.

In that, they are like the worst of the the TSA screeners. (The better screeners, IMHO, are doing the job in order to support themselves and their families.)

The really poor screeners, however, are those who are most protective of their authority; are proud of their ability to stop someone from posting (oops, I mean "flying"); feel that they are not accountable to the average poster (another slip, I meant, of course, "passenger"); will not discuss or explain what they are doing because it is against the TOS (darn it, I meant it is "SSI"); and expect to be universally respected and are shocked when they read on a bulletin board that they are not.

Are there good moderators? Of course. Indeed, some are truly excellent. They are motivated by their desire to help posters and demonstrate that in the way they interact with them. I don't think that the majority of these really care to whom they are answerable because they have very little for which they must answer.

My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if I had any influence over IBB, I'd campaign with equal voracity to eliminate TB tomorrow. Pointless existence if you ask me...

Wow. Just wow. It's rare for me, but I'm pretty much speechless. I wonder how many moderators share your views on accountability.

Have you ever asked yourself why you volunteer your time and effort to "a large, online business" which is "designed to generate a profit"?

If you think about it, it is actually a very strange thing to do. You clearly are not doing it for the good of the membership because you admit that you are not accountable to the average member and would even like to get rid of the membership's only elected body.

Do you do volunteer work for General Electric, Deutsche Bank, Royal Shell, or any other for-profit business?

I certainly can not talk about you, specifically, as I don't even know you, but there are some moderators who get "paid" by ego-enhancement and a (largely imagined) feeling of power.

In that, they are like the worst of the the TSA screeners. (The better screeners, IMHO, are doing the job in order to support themselves and their families.)

The really poor screeners, however, are those who are most protective of their authority; are proud of their ability to stop someone from posting (oops, I mean "flying"); feel that they are not accountable to the average poster (another slip, I meant, of course, "passenger"); will not discuss or explain what they are doing because it is against the TOS (darn it, I meant it is "SSI"); and expect to be universally respected and are shocked when they read on a bulletin board that they are not.

Are there good moderators? Of course. Indeed, some are truly excellent. They are motivated by their desire to help posters and demonstrate that in the way they interact with them. I don't think that the majority of these really care to whom they are answerable because they have very little for which they must answer.I can only assume you applied the above logic to your volunteering to serve on the Talkboard in the past. :rolleyes:

I can only assume you applied the above logic to your volunteering to serve on the Talkboard in the past. :rolleyes:

Well, no, for two reasons:

1. TalkBoard has no authority.

2. When I served on TalkBoard, FT was not owned by a faceless company.

But much of what I said does, indeed, apply to members of TB. There have always been some who were interested only in their own ego-building. What was important to them was having their title under their name, keeping it there by staying on TB as long as they possibly could, and keeping TB as secretive as possible. (Indeed, when I first joined TB they had a rule called the "quiet period" -- during the voting period on a motion TB members were not allowed to discuss the issue publicly.)

There have been other members who were interested in raising issues which they thought were important for the membership and, having done that, did not seek more terms. Their egos were not in the least bothered by no longer having "TalkBoard Member" under their user handles.

Do you do volunteer work for General Electric, Deutsche Bank, Royal Shell, or any other for-profit business?

2. When I served on TalkBoard, FT was not owned by a faceless company.

Not a faceless company no but FT was a for-profit business nonetheless.

I guess there is a possibility that there is a bad apple in the bushel. You know that, I know that, what is unknown is whether it is going to be many or not even 1.

The evidence indicates the majority who have ever moderated did not do it for the strange reasons you elaborated previously. Otherwise FlyerTalk would be an entirely different place than it is. We would not be discussing what is needed to improve it nor would we even be here. We would have abandoned it to the trolls, flamers, spammers and everyone else who doesn't appreciate a good thing.


....
Their egos were not in the least bothered by no longer having "TalkBoard Member" under their user handles.Could equally apply to everybody who is a current Talk Board member or moderator. To imply the opposite is IME an incredible leap of faith.

Not a faceless company no but FT was a for-profit business nonetheless.

You are right but we didn't see it that way then. Look, I also do work for three friends (one an FTer) at no charge. I assist them by writing press releases and advising them on the best way to get them published.

In all three cases, these are start up businesses and I would feel I have been "paid" simply by helping them get off the ground. If they do succeed, I would then ask to be paid for future work.

Not a faceless company no but FT was a for-profit business nonetheless.I was actually in a room a couple years ago when Robert Briscoe (http://www.internetbrands.com/the-company/management.html) and Randy exchanged compliments about each other. Trying to convince those in attendance that the other was the smartest man when it came to the internet. But I digress. :)

Could equally apply to everybody who is a current Talk Board member or moderator. To imply the opposite is IME an incredible leap of faith.

Unfortunately not. I certainly am not going to name names but it isn't even necessary -- in most cases their own actions and statements do that job for me.

Admittedly, most FTers don't know who the good mods are and who the bad ones are but that is only because the great majority of FTers (about 95%) rarely come to the board.

Of the active FTers, I would say that the overwhelming majority know who are the good/bad mods. Heck, I will go further than that -- the mods themselves know it (and several have been honest enough with me, in private, to discuss this problem).

As far as TB members are concerned, there have been some over the years (even the years when I was on it), who were there solely to massage their own egos. Others, who considered their own status to be rather unimportant, were excellent members.

Here, I am going to name at least one name: Kokonutz. I did not, in all honesty, vote for him but he has shown tremendous guts in making the proposals he has already made. I am certain that under Randy he would have already been given a life-time ban from FT. It remains to be seen if Carol will follow the same route.

If you want to see something interesting, do some research and see how many non-mod FTers received suspensions while running for TB, serving on TB, or shortly after leaving TB.

The suspensions generally had nothing to do with TB (at least in theory) but the odds of this tiny group of posters just happening to be suspended without any relationship to their TB connection are rather remote. The chances of winning a state lottery are far greater.

Well, no, for two reasons:

1. TalkBoard has no authority.

2. When I served on TalkBoard, FT was not owned by a faceless company.


The issue I have always had with some members of the TB is that they are motivated & sometimes obsessed by issues that the vast majority of FT'ers couldn't give a hoot about. Often times it is much to do about nothing. @:-)

Not a faceless company no but FT was a for-profit business nonetheless.

FT has always been a for-profit business whether it was owned solely by Randy or today by IB.

I guess there is a possibility that there is a bad apple in the bushel. You know that, I know that, what is unknown is whether it is going to be many or not even 1.

The evidence indicates the majority who have ever moderated did not do it for the strange reasons you elaborated previously. Otherwise FlyerTalk would be an entirely different place than it is. We would not be discussing what is needed to improve it nor would we even be here. We would have abandoned it to the trolls, flamers, spammers and everyone else who doesn't appreciate a good thing.

Could equally apply to everybody who is a current Talk Board member or moderator. To imply the opposite is IME an incredible leap of faith.

Eventually bad apples get discarded whether they be moderators or TB members.

Incidentally I would like to remind everyone that when FT was owned by Randy and functioned as for-profit business (same as today) Randy would stick his neck out and risk alienating the major airlines to support causes like saveskymiles on the DL board and the cockroach movement on the US board. This endeared us to Randy and as a result many people volunteered their precious spare time to assist FT in various roles. IMHO IB would not risk doing this today.

If you want to see something interesting, do some research and see how many non-mod FTers received suspensions while running for TB, serving on TB, or shortly after leaving TB.

The suspensions generally had nothing to do with TB (at least in theory) but the odds of this tiny group of posters just happening to be suspended without any relationship to their TB connection are rather remote. The chances of winning a state lottery are far greater.

Here we go again with a conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:

The issue I have always had with some members of the TB is that they are motivated & sometimes obsessed by issues that the vast majority of FT'ers couldn't give a hoot about. Often times it is much to do about nothing. @:-)

Your are 100%, absolutely, correct.

Of course, when you are elected to a 2 year term and not allowed to discuss anything beyond new forums, post counts, internal TB matters, and TOS changes which moderators are free to ignore, this result is inevitable.

Let TB have some real authority (and, no, I am not arguing this for myself -- I have repeatedly said that I will not run for a third term) and I think you will see that the silly little issues will fall off its agenda and be replaced with questions that truly matter.

Here we go again with a conspiracy theory! :rolleyes:

Please, do the count yourself.

(I realize that you doubt what I said because you, yourself, would never play those kind of games. That is not, unfortunately, true of all mods.)

...

If you want to see something interesting, do some research and see how many non-mod FTers received suspensions while running for TB, serving on TB, or shortly after leaving TB.

The suspensions generally had nothing to do with TB (at least in theory) but the odds of this tiny group of posters just happening to be suspended without any relationship to their TB connection are rather remote. The chances of winning a state lottery are far greater.Well IME this only points out that bad apples were discovered. Do some sleuthing and you will discover moderators who have been suspended. @:-)

I keep reading this recurring theme of "Mods need to be accountable..." which frustrates me somewhat. There appears to be this insinuation that we aren't.

The last time I checked we were volunteers. And we volunteer to Moderate on a IBB, which at the end of the day is a part of a large, online business. Designed to generate a profit.

The business gets to make the rules. It's their gold. I have no problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't have volunteered in the first place. Or if the rules or environment changed and I didn't agree with them (or it), then again, free to leave.

My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

Koko, as hard as you are campaigning for your cause (crusade) and I admire you for it, I disagree with just about everything you're fighting for.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if I had any influence over IBB, I'd campaign with equal voracity to eliminate TB tomorrow. Pointless existence if you ask me...

That's IB (Internet Brands), not IBB (a generic reference to "internet bulletin boards").

This posting really epitomizes the problem. If too many moderators exhibited this 'tude, most members would be out of here.

What IB (or HOM at one time) want is content. Content attracts members, who contribute more content, and lurkers, who contribute participation in the forum of "visits" and "pageviews" and especially income. Members might also contribute some income, but the bulk of ad clicks will come from unregistered lurkers. In my own boards, 70+% of the traffic comes from search engines and referrals, not from direct accesses (i.e. people who already know about it).

How do you get members to stick around and contribute content? I'll leave that as an open question, but I'll also suggest that abusing them & treating them with arrogance is not part of a successful equation. The more they feel welcome & at home & part of a community, the more they will contribute. IB's needs are best met by trying to serve the members directly and keeping them satisfied.

FT has always been a for-profit business whether it was owned solely by Randy or today by IB.

Yes, which was my point ;) but will expand on the topic to ask those here to consider how the role of Moderator would change if it were a paying job. If Dov thinks some egos are boosted by Mod. title imagine how it would change with a Mod. title and a paycheque. It's not something I'd like to see so am okay with it staying a volunteer thing even if some don't understand the motivation. Just MHO.

Well IME this only points out that bad apples were discovered. Do some sleuthing and you will discover moderators who have been suspended. @:-)

I certainly know of at least one moderator who was suspended. Oddly enough, it happened shortly after he made a critical post about moderation. (His suspension, of course, was for a completely different matter and had nothing to do with that post. Right?)

If Dov thinks some egos are boosted by Mod. title imagine how it would change with a Mod. title and a paycheque.

IMHO, someone getting a paycheck would think twice before risking it by letting his ego interfere with his work. Although I made a TSA comparison earlier, there is one big difference here -- it is much harder to hide what you are doing when it is on a public bulletin board.

Your are 100%, absolutely, correct.

Of course, when you are elected to a 2 year term and not allowed to discuss anything beyond new forums, post counts, internal TB matters, and TOS changes which moderators are free to ignore, this result is inevitable.

Let TB have some real authority (and, no, I am not arguing this for myself -- I have repeatedly said that I will not run for a third term) and I think you will see that the silly little issues will fall off its agenda and be replaced with questions that truly matter.

Right on the mark.

And speaking of TB members suspended, there's one well known ex-TB member suspended repeatedly (and I believe once again, permanently) because said TB member kept discussing the evil subject of moderation.

TB not only has it's range of allowed influence artificially curtailed, they are also subjected to intimidation & reprisal by the moderator corps if they dare to question moderation.

IMHO, someone getting a paycheck would think twice before risking it by letting his ego interfere with his work. Although I made a TSA comparison earlier, there is one big difference here -- it is much harder to hide what you are doing when it is on a public bulletin board.

Mods are not going to be paid on FT. Not when posters are queuing up to do it for free. Free is what the market will bear so free it is.

So this is our paradigm. And in this paradigm, I still believe there is an opportunity for Mods to focus on keeping the posters (the ones who bring the gold to IB) happy and posting and making FT their IBB of choice, and ensuring that ego, arrogance nor any other malevolent motivation never trumps good management. Here it is:

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).

I certainly know of at least one moderator who was suspended. Oddly enough, it happened shortly after he made a critical post about moderation. (His suspension, of course, was for a completely different matter and had nothing to do with that post. Right?)Your 'oddly enough" is just an assumption or as others might say a can of worms.

Most moderators just like most Talk Board members are good members and do not hold conspiracy theories. No the reason a member, even though they will go to the river in Africa, runs afoul is due to their last post. It may have been their first post ever or their 20000 but it was the one that got them there. The only exception that I can think to that is persistent infringement. Just like officiating a match it is difficult to see and invariably we are provided the first clue by an RBP from a concerned member. Sometimes we agree with the RBP other times we do not.

Once again the evidence surrounds you. If you followed the Robert Briscoe link above and looked around you would have read that IB had an average 94 million unique views a month for all their holdings. Not sure what amount was FTs but do know that FT is near the largest. If you break it into their Travel section you would have found out that there were 146 million visits (not unique) and once again FT is amongst the largest with the most percentage.

.

COLOR="blue"]Discussion of individual posters'[/COLOR] suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads.

Why not allow it (if the person suspended begins it)? We are certainly NOT protecting his privacy. After all, for up to 30 days the word "suspended" appears under his name on every post he ever made.

If he feels he has been wronged, why should he not be able to say so in a public forum and, perhaps, clear his name?

Of course, once he makes such a post the moderator(s) involved would be free to present their side of the story -- including, but not limited to, showing the actual post that earned the suspension.

Other posters would then be free to determine if the suspension was warranted or not.

It seems to me that by prohibiting discussion of a specific suspension we are not protecting the poster from anyone but himself but are protecting a moderator who handed out an invalid suspension.

...

..., but the bulk of ad clicks will come from unregistered lurkers. [/B] In my own boards, 70+% of the traffic comes from search engines and referrals, not from direct accesses (i.e. people who already know about it).

How do you get members to stick around and contribute content? I'll leave that as an open question, .... IB's needs are best met by trying to serve the members directly and keeping them satisfied.AFAIK this specific forum is the only one on FT that always seems to have more registered members in attendance than guests. Sometimes it seems like an exclusive chat room. But nonetheless I have read and posted in this room since July '02

Why not allow it (if the person suspended begins it)? We are certainly NOT protecting his privacy. After all, for up to 30 days the word "suspended" appears under his name on every post he ever made.

If he feels he has been wronged, why should he not be able to say so in a public forum and, perhaps, clear his name?

Of course, once he makes such a post the moderator(s) involved would be free to present their side of the story -- including, but not limited to, showing the actual post that earned the suspension.

Other posters would then be free to determine if the suspension was warranted or not.

It seems to me that by prohibiting discussion of a specific suspension we are not protecting the poster from anyone but himself but are protecting a moderator who handed out an invalid suspension.
Because the threads in the specific forums are meant to improve the day-to-day management of that particular forum through collaborative input to the management practices in that forum.

I'm all for making the disciplinary process more public. Heck, it's mostly all open secrets anyway, as we all talk about this 'forbidden topic' in person, on email, in other IBBs and even on the face book. No moderator can control what we do off-board, nor punish us for it. The discipline database is the worst kept secret on FlyerTalk, only slightly behind fuel dumps. So sure, let's talk about a way to pull back that curtain. But that should not be done in the threads I am proposing because it is not forum-specific, so addressing that topic is another issue for another day in another thread.

Right now I am focused on creating a consistent opportunity for collaborative feedback on the day-to-day management of forums across FT. :)

IMHO, someone getting a paycheck would think twice before risking it by letting his ego interfere with his work.

Odd it never stopped a few of my bosses. Sorry but while I hear what you're saying a paid staff of Mod.'s isn't something I'd welcome.

Why not allow it (if the person suspended begins it)? We are certainly NOT protecting his privacy. After all, for up to 30 days the word "suspended" appears under his name on every post he ever made.

If he feels he has been wronged, why should he not be able to say so in a public forum and, perhaps, clear his name?

Of course, once he makes such a post the moderator(s) involved would be free to present their side of the story -- including, but not limited to, showing the actual post that earned the suspension.

Other posters would then be free to determine if the suspension was warranted or not.

It seems to me that by prohibiting discussion of a specific suspension we are not protecting the poster from anyone but himself but are protecting a moderator who handed out an invalid suspension.:confused:

What purpose does this serve for FT? What does this do for somebody wanting to come to FT and learn about miles and points?

I just posted to Mike above about TB Topics being an exclusive member enclave for FT. Neverthe less about 4 or 5 years prior to being asked to be a moderator by Randy the following was posted by me.1) Make public castigation of moderation a TOS violation

This IMO would help to improve FT in two ways 1) It would take the onus off of any moderators feeling that it is neccessary to defend themselves in public and 2) a discussion of the complaint could take place by those who best know the who, what, when, why and where of moderation.

FWIW it will obviously make the FT conspiratory theorists upset but will make the FT coincidence theorists pleased. Frankly I don't really care one way or the other.

What I do care is that the moderators have the time to clean up the miles and points forums by either closing or moving the misposted threads. IIRC this along with stopping flame wars was to be their primary task and I find it a slap in the face for them that their primary task has seemingly become defense of their actions.
I really wonder if my proposal was the first public one because it was not always in the TOS? Once again this was posted in a thread that was castigating moderators.

More importantly it still confuses me that 7 years later there are those who believe a moderator needs to spend time in an open discussion with someone who has taken a river cruise in Africa instead of attending to the reasons they became a moderator.

FlyerTalk moderators — by my observation, anyway, and not just because I happen to be a FlyerTalk moderator — generally do care about the FlyerTalk members whom they serve and want to provide them with the best experience possible. Otherwise, what is the point of volunteering to become a moderator?

There is a difference between believing that the Mods care about the members and the mods actually acting in a manner that is beneficial to the community rather than to themselves. I was a mod for several years before being fired from that role. I saw plenty of mod activity where there was no deference paid to what was best for the community. Suggesting that it always happens that way is myopic at best.

I am not talking about "castigating" a moderator. If Poster X announces that Moderator A is a liar, idiot, or any other such thing then Poster X has made a personal attack and should, indeed, be disciplined for it.

On the other hand, it is not a personal attack (and may well be true) for Poster X to say that he feels that Moderator A erred and to give his reasons for believing that.

Moderator A would be free to respond or not -- that is up to him.

Personally, I believe that if there were a true TOS violation then in most cases simply showing what Poster X had written would be sufficient to prove that Moderator A was right.

AFAIK this specific forum is the only one on FT that always seems to have more registered members in attendance than guests. Sometimes it seems like an exclusive chat room. But nonetheless I have read and posted in this room since July '02

Caveat on the guest count -- it's roughly 3X the actual number of unregistered users over the configured time period (30 minutes for FT). Without a cookie & registration info, it's not possible to get a proper count.

We need to stop and do a reality check. We have some posting in this thread who seem to believe that the patient is in the surgery room, with life threatening injuries. That is far from reality. The reality is that Randy left a very healthy board on his departure. It has experienced exceptional growth in 2011, highly unusual for a board of this size. Can it be better? Of course. Facebook continues to seek ways to improve. So does TripAdvisor. But we need to keep in mind that the patient is extremely healthy. Perhaps we could floss our teeth a bit more, but there are no teeth that need to be removed and no crowns that need to be made.

Will a board, any board, suits everyone's needs? No, of course not. An FTer used an analogy with me as to a board being like a restaurant. It has a particular offering. Those that don't want that atmosphere or that food will eat elsewhere. But the chef isn't going to switch from offering steak to only serving vegan food if his expertise is beef. Do we lose members when we require civility of posters? Yes, we do - and we are ok with that.

If I were a contented FTer, and almost all are, I would read this thread with dismay. I would suddenly think there is much conflict and infighting going on. If this is reflective of the community, I doubt that I would stay. Be careful that you don't injure the patient by the implications of your statements.

I'm proud of the team that worked on our TS/S issue. That forum represented FT at its worst. The alternative was to close it forever or to repurpose it in a way that served the core mission of FlyerTalk. It was one of the ugliest issues that Randy left me with. He had hoped to deal with it himself, and simply ran out of time. I began receiving messages about it from participants the first week on my new job. I waited several months till I felt more confident of my ability to wade in. We spent months of hard work on it, having taken considerable input from members, and then melding together the best ideas of all. Now, members can go to a forum and receive practical information about their security questions without having the thread derailed by the third post by those who detest the entire security process. And yet the latter concerns are also worthy of discussion, and they now have a subforum dedicated to that.

I'm proud of our mods. As a group they have done extraordinary work, many organizing information in their forums so that folks can easily learn about nuances of their program. Some have developed information channels with airlines and hotels so that there is a feedback as to what members would like in both their travel experience and their travel program. Are they perfect? Absolutely not. But I do consider whether members are best serviced by forum practices and specific mods. Do we have the same mods today that we did at the start of the year? No. Will I discuss that? No. We constantly are discussing good practices for mods who work to improve.

Some of you seem to have very velcro personalities, where you want to consider some perceived ill of 2005 needing righted today. Much has evolved over the years. For example, Randy decided some years ago that only he could discipline any candidate running for Talkboard during the campaign. He took it away from the mods to eliminate the perception of personal agendas. I issued the same rule this election period. Yet some of you are banging away at what happened before any such change. Give it up, people.

Will I allow discussion of specific discipline? Of course not. Would that better the spirit of the board? No. Would it help bring posters? No. Would it even be beneficial to those involved? No. There is a documented process for discipline and appeals by which we abide. Appeals do get heard, and they are done with impartiality and not favoritism to the mod involved.

If I were some of the many volunteers who work tirelessly for the betterment of FlyerTalk, I'd read this thread and think why. Broad brush strokes are being used to criticize, and should not be.

I hope that there is genuine interest in making the FlyerTalk experience better. I'm not convinced of that by the tone of this thread. The metrics say that we have an exceptionally healthy board. Accept that as a baseline. Give up your issues with what happened two or five or 10 years ago. Find a language to present ideas so that they appear to be helpful and not punitive. I am constantly thinking about how to improve the member experience. I welcome forward looking suggestions and not past criticism.

Caveat on the guest count -- it's roughly 3X the actual number of unregistered users over the configured time period (30 minutes for FT). Without a cookie & registration info, it's not possible to get a proper count.Interesting I generally just look at the numbers at the bottom. Currently 7 vs 2 for this forum - compared to say the new Practical Travel Safety Issues forum which is 5 vs 40.

Would not unique views be the more critical measurement?

Find a language to present ideas to that they appear to be helpful and not punitive. I am constantly thinking about how to improve the member experience. I welcome forward looking suggestions and not past criticism.<raises hand>

OOH OOH! Call on me! Call on me!

How about improving the member experience by allowing consistent, collaborative, constructive feedback on the day-to-day management of forums with this:

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).


:)

Right on the mark.

And speaking of TB members suspended, there's one well known ex-TB member suspended repeatedly (and I believe once again, permanently) because said TB member kept discussing the evil subject of moderation.

TB not only has it's range of allowed influence artificially curtailed, they are also subjected to intimidation & reprisal by the moderator corps if they dare to question moderation.

Frankly I feel that you crossing the line with this statement. You are making accusations that cannot be supported by fact. If someone whether they be a FT'er, TB member, ex TB member, moderator or ex moderator repeatedly violates the TOS they should be suspended.

In addition, need I remind you of the sticky thread on the top of the TB forum that clearly states that discussion concerning moderation is not permitted?

This is the TalkBoard Forum.
It is not the Moderator Forum.

If you have complaints/questions/compliments/etc about moderator actions or policies, or moderation in general, then address them to Carol ("SanDiego1K"), the Flyertalk Community Director.

The TalkBoard does not make policy for the moderators. The moderators serve at Carol's pleasure and their decisions follow from her guidance, not the TalkBoard's.

I do not want to have to keep editing posts that contain explicit or implicit objections to moderators' actions or moderation itself. This is not the place for the Airing of Grievances.

This type of rhetoric should be addressed to Carol ("SanDiego1K") who I know will give you a proper reply and totally address any issue that you may have. The problem we have here is that many people know exactly what is stated in FT's TOS and do not wish to abide by the rules in place.

<raises hand>

OOH OOH! Call on me! Call on me!

How about improving the member experience by allowing consistent, collaborative, constructive feedback on the day-to-day management of forums with this:

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).


:)While the intent is good, my fear is that threads like this will become short lived and eventually closed because folks will be posting where they are missing the meaning and intent of the thread and it will become a "b!tch session" with too much time being spent deleting posts

So "hypothetically", do you think you would consider my typical type of response polite when this "hypothetical" question was asked?
Per the TOS that you have quoted many times on this thread, I believe that any specific discussion I would have on your actions (especially in a thread like this) would be against the TOS.

So, what you're saying is that it's ok to be a jerk to others, at least if you're a moderator?

Per the TOS that you have quoted many times on this thread, I believe that any specific discussion I would have on your actions (especially in a thread like this) would be against the TOS.

So why don't you answer this question on the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta-skymiles/59521-moderators-guilty-premature-evacuation.html thread where you will have a great deal more latitude. After all, you called me a jerk there in what I would describe a hit and run type post and then disappeared. You must have a great deal of history on my moderator actions to base your comments and conclusion on.

Once again the evidence surrounds you. If you followed the Robert Briscoe link above and looked around you would have read that IB had an average 94 million unique views a month for all their holdings. Not sure what amount was FTs but do know that FT is near the largest. If you break it into their Travel section you would have found out that there were 146 million visits (not unique) and once again FT is amongst the largest with the most percentage.



I very much hope (and in all honesty believe) that you don't think FT gets all these views because people are impressed by the moderation. It does not.

What attracts these views are the posts. It is you (in your capacity of being a member), me, and about eight or nine thousand other posters who provide the content which draws people to FT.

It should not be forgotten that if FT got rid of all the moderators, all the TB members, and reduced the quality of the software to the poorest available there would still be a FlyerTalk, albeit one of lower quality.

On the other hand, if the posters were to disappear, so would FlyerTalk. The moderators would be left with no one to moderate, TalkBoard would have no reason to make any decisions at all, and the world's greatest software would go unused.

That is what makes it so disappointing to see a moderator express the following attitude:


My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

(snip)

Because as far as I'm concerned, if I had any influence over IB, I'd campaign with equal voracity to eliminate TB tomorrow. Pointless existence if you ask me...

If I were some of the many volunteers who work tirelessly for the betterment of FlyerTalk, I'd read this thread and think why. Broad brush strokes are being used to criticize, and should not be.

I hope that there is genuine interest in making the FlyerTalk experience better. I'm not convinced of that by the tone of this thread. The metrics say that we have an exceptionally healthy board. Accept that as a baseline. Give up your issues with what happened two or five or 10 years ago. Find a language to present ideas so that they appear to be helpful and not punitive. I am constantly thinking about how to improve the member experience. I welcome forward looking suggestions and not past criticism.

So can I take your comments to mean that Koko's proposal is DOA?

I can see why you'd focus on the positive and the high percentage of users who are happy, but it's a sad day to hear the evolution of FlyerTalk will not include greater transparency and measures to improve moderation rationale. I know you have your hands full and its tough to decide which issues need addressing and I don't want to appear ungrateful for all that you've done since taking on your CD role, but your comments are discouraging.

[Example: there is a moderator in this thread who has made several points I disagree with or would point out his/her errors, but I'm afraid to as that moderator has previously threatened me with 'stalking' - the deck is stacked in his/her favor.]

If I see a silver lining it's that this thread has been allowed to exist at all and has not been highly moderated/edited. 2 Years ago I could not have imagined that happening. Baby steps. ^

[Example: there is a moderator in this thread who has made several points I disagree with or would point out his/her errors, but I'm afraid to as that moderator has previously threatened me with 'stalking' - the deck is stacked in his/her favor.]


I love it when someone makes an inflammatory post like this, says nothing of substance and then avoids a response. If you would like to respond to any post made in this thread please do so and spare me the theatrics. We all know that there is no deck stacked against you. @:-)

While the intent is good, my fear is that threads like this will become short lived and eventually closed because folks will be posting where they are missing the meaning and intent of the thread and it will become a "b!tch session" with too much time being spent deleting posts

That has not been the experience in the forums where this has been implemented.

I'm sure it takes a little more time for the mods to participate in and moderate those theads than to operate without collaborative feedback. But they get a fantastic return on that investment: posters who have a better understanding of and input to the day-to-day management of the forum they moderate.

That has not been the experience in the forums where this has been implemented.

I'm sure it takes a little more time for the mods to participate in and moderate those theads than to operate without collaborative feedback. But they get a fantastic return on that investment: posters who have a better understanding of and input to the day-to-day management of the forum they moderate.

koko, will you agree that not all posters on these existing threads are reasonable and no matter what you say to them they will not be satisfied unless you are in total agreement with them?

If I see a silver lining it's that this thread has been allowed to exist at all and has not been highly moderated/edited. 2 Years ago I could not have imagined that happening. Baby steps. ^

I agree with this comment. When I ran for TB this year, I figured there was a 50-50 chance I would end up with a suspension and possibly a lifetime ban.

But I think Carol knows that I am not a troll, but rather someone who has some ideas about how to make FT a better place. Someone who feels a little burned by how the whole MilePoint thing went down and was left by it singularly focused on making FT even better than it has been for over a decade. Someone who is would like to address head-on the few areas left that can be improved to make FT more poster-focused than any other IBB on the interweb tubes.

But if I end up with 'Suspended' or 'Banned' under my user name, so be it. I will have gone down trying to improve FT. That's totally worth getting kicked off of it for! ^

koko, will you agree that not all posters on these existing threads are reasonable and no matter what you say to them they will not be satisfied unless you are in total agreement with them?

Sure, and it looks like the last 2 posters in the DL thread, mbarreto and Colin, are less than satisfied with recent management decisions. But they get to have their say. And they are likely more satisfied for having had it and knowing they are not alone in that dissatisfaction than if had they not had that opportunity. And as moderators, you get to know that there is some dissatisfaction, where it stems from and learn from that.

And people like me can read that thread and know not just the rules of FlyerTalk, but how the rules of FlyerTalk are generally enforced in the DL forum and how other posters feel about it. And know that my input and collaboration on management issues are welcome

Those are all incredibly positive things that make the FlyerTalk experience better. ^

But if I end up with 'Suspended' or 'Banned' under my user name, so be it. I will have gone down trying to improve FT. That's totally worth getting kicked off of it for! ^

What we all see as improvements are subjective, though I will give you points for caring enough to effect a "remodelling" while shaking up TB in the process.

Interesting I generally just look at the numbers at the bottom. Currently 7 vs 2 for this forum - compared to say the new Practical Travel Safety Issues forum which is 5 vs 40.

Would not unique views be the more critical measurement?

That would be more useful overall, but either would be distorted by an individual thrashing through a lot of pages. As long as you understand that a single user can be counted more than once, it's still a useful indicator of activity.

Google Analytics provides a good measure of unique visitors, but I'm not aware of anyway to break that down by forum.

Hi: Let me say upfront that I have been a sporadic participant in FlyerTalk (both as a member, and prior to that as a lurker); depending on my work and travel schedule, I sometimes check it several times a day, and sometimes not for months at a time (as has been the case recently). I'll also confess that I have only skimmed the previous 13 pages of this thread, so apologies in advance if I am repeating something that may have already been suggested. With those caveats, though, I thought perhaps I might be able to offer something from my perspective as a somewhat 'average' member.

First of all, I very much appreciate the fact that FlyerTalk IS a moderated forum -- it's what keeps the discussion and information here useful. For that reason, I very much appreciate all the time devoted by the volunteer moderators (and TalkBoard members) to keep things running smoothly. And for THAT reason, while I would hope that most moderators are reasonably responsive to community feedback, I would really disfavor adding a feedback mechanism that requires yet more work for the moderators, or creates a disincentive to moderate, because it becomes a public bully pulpit.

For the most part, I think that the ability to PM a moderator provides an adequate channel for feedback about specific issues as they arise. It also puts more onus on the member providing the feedback to do so in constructive and clear terms -- I think it is much easier to complain about someone on a public forum than it is to their face.

However, I think it is equally true that there can be some benefit to public discussion of issues regarding moderation -- e.g., when one person states "I'd really love it if the moderators did x," and someone else chimes in to say "I never thought of that, but now that you mention it, that's a really great idea." Though not perfect by any means, a public forum can also provide some gauge of how widespread support or lack of support for a particular suggestion may be.

Bearing these two considerations in mind, here is my suggestion: instead of having an ongoing thread for moderation issues in each forum, how about having a limited-time thread (e.g. 2 weeks) posted on an annual basis to collect feedback -- i.e., similar to the way in which polls are posted for a limited time. There would need to be ground rules, of course, that keep the tenor of the discussion civil and not personal. But I think a once-a-year thread would encourage the posting of more general suggestions rather than complaints about specific moderator actions. It would also limit the burden on moderators of having to sift through a thread. Perhaps, if desired, sometime following such exercise, the moderators could post a message providing their own feedback on some (not necessarily all) of the suggestions offered.

Anyway, just a suggestion. At the end of the day, as someone who benefits a lot from this forum but does not have any responsibilities for running it, I'm willing to live with the rules that the moderators and the TalkBoard set up -- including the rule about not discussing moderation decisions publicly -- even if I may sometimes disagree with individual moderator actions. If I didn't feel that way, there are plenty of other internet fora to explore. And I've never felt that a politely worded PM to a moderator would be unwelcome as a means of feedback.

Good luck, and sincere thanks to everyone who works to make FT a better place, whether in an official governance role or making constructive suggestions. It's a very interesting community.

I find much merit in these suggestions. Thank you for taking the time to post, ZenFlyer. ^

instead of having an ongoing thread for moderation issues in each forum, how about having a limited-time thread (e.g. 2 weeks) posted on an annual basis to collect feedback -- i.e., similar to the way in which polls are posted for a limited time. There would need to be ground rules, of course, that keep the tenor of the discussion civil and not personal. But I think a once-a-year thread would encourage the posting of more general suggestions rather than complaints about specific moderator actions. It would also limit the burden on moderators of having to sift through a thread. Perhaps, if desired, sometime following such exercise, the moderators could post a message providing their own feedback on some (not necessarily all) of the suggestions offered.

This sounds pretty good to me. Moderators would always have the option to open the thread more frequently or even full-time if they saw value in that.

FTers are so very creative!

...I've never felt that a politely worded PM to a moderator would be unwelcome as a means of feedback.

Very, very true. ^

I love it when someone makes an inflammatory post like this, says nothing of substance and then avoids a response. If you would like to respond to any post made in this thread please do so and spare me the theatrics. We all know that there is no deck stacked against you. @:-)

That's your opinion. I have the PM from the moderator. Was there a response I needed to make or are you baiting me to violate TOS [substance = name]? :confused: Also, note I said deck in favor of the mod (Community Director was shown where the mod violated TOS and as far as I know he/she hasn't been disciplined@:-)).

Now, back to Koko's proposal...

Also, note I said deck in favor of the mod (Community Director was shown where the mod violated TOS and as far as I know he/she hasn't been disciplined@:-)).


1. Not all reported TOS violations result in disciplinary action obvious to the reporting party/parties.

2. Not all reported TOS violation are treated equally, whether by way of deliberate intent or unintended negligence.

Bearing these two considerations in mind, here is my suggestion: instead of having an ongoing thread for moderation issues in each forum, how about having a limited-time thread (e.g. 2 weeks) posted on an annual basis to collect feedback -- i.e., similar to the way in which polls are posted for a limited time. There would need to be ground rules, of course, that keep the tenor of the discussion civil and not personal. But I think a once-a-year thread would encourage the posting of more general suggestions rather than complaints about specific moderator actions. It would also limit the burden on moderators of having to sift through a thread. Perhaps, if desired, sometime following such exercise, the moderators could post a message providing their own feedback on some (not necessarily all) of the suggestions offered.


Thanks for sharing your perspective and suggestion.

I like that you are seeking a middle-ground solution! ^

But I would be concerned that allowing/requiring only 2 weeks of collaborative feedback to day-to-day forum management per year would miss many of the opportunities we have to make FlyerTalk a better place. Would members jot down an idea or issue for discussion that occurs to them in February and wait until the 'collaborative feedback' session in August or whenever? Or would we have lost that input by then?

Perhaps a compromise is to have 'open feedback' threads open in all active forums for the first week of each month. That way the mods are not constantly required to monitor that thread, but members need only wait a maximum of three weeks to bring up and/or talk about suggestions to improve the day-to-day management. Or set that process as a minimum, anyway. If mods want to keep the thread open longer or even permanently, that would be up to them as time allows.

Thanks for sharing your perspective and suggestion.

I like that you are seeking a middle-ground solution! ^

But I would be concerned that allowing/requiring only 2 weeks of collaborative feedback to day-to-day forum management per year would miss many of the opportunities we have to make FlyerTalk a better place. Would members jot down an idea or issue for discussion that occurs to them in February and wait until the 'collaborative feedback' session in August or whenever? Or would we have lost that input by then?

Perhaps a compromise is to have 'open feedback' threads open in all active forums for the first week of each month. That way the mods are not constantly required to monitor that thread, but members need only wait a maximum of three weeks to bring up and/or talk about suggestions to improve the day-to-day management. Or set that process as a minimum, anyway. If mods want to keep the thread open longer or even permanently, that would be up to them as time allows.I agree and with special emphasis on the bolded part (mine) as what might be an excellent point in February will be/could become lost by August

[Example: there is a moderator in this thread who has made several points I disagree with or would point out his/her errors, but I'm afraid to as that moderator has previously threatened me with 'stalking' - the deck is stacked in his/her favor.]


I love it when someone makes an inflammatory post like this, says nothing of substance and then avoids a response. If you would like to respond to any post made in this thread please do so and spare me the theatrics. We all know that there is no deck stacked against you. @:-)

That's your opinion. I have the PM from the moderator. Was there a response I needed to make or are you baiting me to violate TOS [substance = name]? :confused: Also, note I said deck in favor of the mod (Community Director was shown where the mod violated TOS and as far as I know he/she hasn't been disciplined@:-)).

Now, back to Koko's proposal...

Nobody is trying to bait you into a violation of the TOS and you know it. :td:
As long as you make posts that don't violate the TOS we both know this is a non issue. @:-)

I agree and with special emphasis on the bolded part (mine) as what might be an excellent point in February will be/could become lost by August

Not necessarily. As ZenFlyer pointed out:

And I've never felt that a politely worded PM to a moderator would be unwelcome as a means of feedback.

Not necessarily. As ZenFlyer pointed out:

But that's a private conversation. From a moderator's side, they get various independent points of input. But there is no collaboration. And from the poster side we have no idea if any other members share our issues/concerns/suggestions or have different ways of looking at them, thinking about them or addressing them.

It's the difference between a letter to the editor and a comment section in an online story. One gets your point across. The other adds to a conversation. And since this is FlyerTALK, not FlyerSENDEACHOTHERPMS it seems like this collaborative conversation ought to be the norm.

But that's a private conversation. From a moderator's side, they get various independent points of input. But there is no collaboration. And from the poster side we have no idea if any other members share our issues/concerns/suggestions or have different ways of looking at them, thinking about them or addressing them.

It's the difference between a letter to the editor and a comment section in an online story. One gets your point across. The other adds to a conversation. And since this is FlyerTALK, not FlyerSENDEACHOTHERPMS it seems like this collaborative conversation ought to be the norm.What Mr. Nutz ;) said

But that's a private conversation. Of course. Still doesn't mean it's not collaborative. Not all members feel comfortable posting publicly, especially when they're not sure how their fellow members will react.

You keep suggesting that we look at things from a regular member's POV. We do, and guess what? Sometimes they suggest great ideas that we've never thought of, cf. forum glossaries, Nude-o-Scope sticky, lounge threads, etc. Sometimes PMs confirm ideas we've already thought of, such as a forum split. That's collaboration in its most fundamental form. I would bargain most forums already function in this manner. It's a bit rich to suggest some forms of collaboration are better than others or some are wrong because they don't meet your standard of discourse. Not every one is as confident in communication as you or I, koko. :D


For the record, I think the essential suggestion in the OP has merit. I also think it's out of TB purview to mandate specific types of threads, in particular those pertaining to questions of moderation.

I also think it's out of TB purview to mandate specific types of threads, in particular those pertaining to questions of moderation.

In the end, that's up to Carol. We can only make the recommendation.

But that's a private conversation. From a moderator's side, they get various independent points of input. But there is no collaboration. And from the poster side we have no idea if any other members share our issues/concerns/suggestions or have different ways of looking at them, thinking about them or addressing them.
One poster may have a great suggestion for a forum or a solution to mega-threading or some such, but if they don't know that it's a problem or complaint for others, they may not bother to share their idea, thinking that it's a problem unique to them.
Of course. Still doesn't mean it's not collaborative. Not all members feel comfortable posting publicly, especially when they're not sure how their fellow members will react.

You keep suggesting that we look at things from a regular member's POV. We do, and guess what? Sometimes they suggest great ideas that we've never thought of, cf. forum glossaries, Nude-o-Scope sticky, lounge threads, etc. Sometimes PMs confirm ideas we've already thought of, such as a forum split. That's collaboration in its most fundamental form. I would bargain most forums already function in this manner. It's a bit rich to suggest some forms of collaboration are better than others or some are wrong because they don't meet your standard of discourse. Not every one is as confident in communication as you or I, koko. :D


For the record, I think the essential suggestion in the OP has merit. I also think it's out of TB purview to mandate specific types of threads, in particular those pertaining to questions of moderation.
If something like what koko has proposed is implemented, and members don't feel comfortable posting in that thread, they still have the option of sending a PM to the moderator. A thread is simply giving them an additional outlet to communicate and share ideas, and allow for greater collaboration. This may lead to greater improvements.

If a member isn't comfortable posting in a thread, and would prefer to PM a moderator, perhaps the moderator can ask the member, "Can I share your idea in the moderation thread? If you'd prefer, I won't share your user name, but will post that a member suggested XYZ."
In the end, that's up to Carol. We can only make the recommendation.
I don't see a problem with at least making the recommendation. :D

I don't see a problem with at least making the recommendation. :D

In case you aren't sure, I agree completely. The phrase "not in my purview" simply won't come from my mouth or keyboard (unless I'm quoting it) the next two years. Carol is always free to discard any comment or suggestion I make, but it's not going to change how I go about things.

Kudos to TalkBoard member nsx for deciding to run a beta test of this idea in the forum he moderates, Southwest Rapid Rewards!

So far, very early on, looks like it is improving the FlyerTalk experience for that forum's posters.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1290614-please-give-us-your-opinions-moderation-forum.html

For the record, I think the essential suggestion in the OP has merit. Thanks! :)

I also think it's out of TB purview to mandate specific types of threads, in particular those pertaining to questions of moderation.
I reject such bureaucratic silo management not-built-here thinking. An idea to improve the FT experience is an idea to improve the FT experience. ^

And in any case, this suggestion is simply an amendment to the TOS....something well within even the most narrow interpretation of 'the purview of the TB.'

If something like what koko has proposed is implemented, and members don't feel comfortable posting in that thread, they still have the option of sending a PM to the moderator.Which, of course, is exactly what I proposed upthread. Glad to see we've finally reached an agreement!

And in any case, this suggestion is simply an amendment to the TOS....something well within even the most narrow interpretation of 'the purview of the TB.'

OTBMMFD. :D

Which, of course, is exactly what I proposed upthread. Glad to see we've finally reached an agreement!

So, you're saying that you agree that members should at least have the option of posting on a thread about forum moderation? Great!

So, you're saying that you agree that members should at least have the option of posting on a thread about forum moderation?That would be taking liberties with my words and meaning.

Kudos to TalkBoard member nsx for deciding to run a beta test of this idea in the forum he moderates, Southwest Rapid Rewards!

So far, very early on, looks like it is improving the FlyerTalk experience for that forum's posters.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1290614-please-give-us-your-opinions-moderation-forum.html
It does look good. Just having that thread there, for people to comment on, looks like a really good idea.

That would be taking liberties with my words and meaning.

Only doing what has been done with mine.

Kudos to TalkBoard member nsx for deciding to run a beta test of this idea in the forum he moderates, Southwest Rapid Rewards!

So far, very early on, looks like it is improving the FlyerTalk experience for that forum's posters.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1290614-please-give-us-your-opinions-moderation-forum.html

Just to prove that I too think that feedback of any kind is warranted, I have blatantly copied nsx's idea and posted in the EK forum...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emirates-airlines-skywards/1291111-your-feedback-moderation-forum.html

Just to prove that I too think that feedback of any kind is warranted, I have blatantly copied nsx's idea and posted in the EK forum...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emirates-airlines-skywards/1291111-your-feedback-moderation-forum.html

Well done! With faith in the posters, I have no doubt but that it will be appreciated, helpful and improve the FT experience!

Well done! With faith in the posters, I have no doubt but that it will be appreciated, helpful and improve the FT experience!

Hope so...

FWIW, if this goes to motion, I'm likely to vote for it.

Based on offline complaints I've heard about some fora, I think it'll only be impactful if it's available in all fora...the only thing is that I would venture to say that the majority of moderators are viewed as doing an excellent job and there's only a few who are overzealous & over-moderate...the challenge is that if you can't speak of specific actions, it's hard to point out the sometimes seemingly stupid moves these specific mods make...and on occassion, when they are pointed out, they are either corrected or ignored...and when they are corrected, the behavior doesn't change in the long run...the same moderator will sometimes make the same seemingly illogical decision...

Public forum for member-mod collaboration: an example (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions/1291115-split-sticky-lightest-carry-bag-thread-into-wheeled-non-wheeled.html)

ETA: ... and another example (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-products/992588-moderator-question-travel-products-forum-users.html).

Public forum for member-mod collaboration: an example (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/suggestions/1291115-split-sticky-lightest-carry-bag-thread-into-wheeled-non-wheeled.html)

ETA: ... and another example (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/travel-products/992588-moderator-question-travel-products-forum-users.html).

^

Collaborative management feedback rocks!

Having had direct experience of opening up a channel for dialogue along the lines proposed, my advice is to proceed with great caution.

Reading the comments posted in this thread, I am picking up a general feeling that moderators or mod teams have the ability to determine the culture, style and content of a forum. This is a misconception. It truly is the membership that has the power to shape and steer the direction of any given forum. The role of a moderator is a varied one but primarily we serve as a concierge (or butler as I prefer to call it) so placing the spotlight on moderation or moderators sets unrealistic expectations. The ToS serves as the principle point of reference for all members (including moderators) and it is folly to assume this can be modified via a myriad of mod feedback channels, not to mention the instability this would cause if the ToS was opened up for debate across all fora.

What we have done on the BA forum is request feedback from the denizens of the forum not on moderation per se, but on how the experience can be improved. We introduced a feedback thread along these lines in February 2009 at a time the forum was hurting. Personal division between members and intolerance to newcomer's questions was dragging the forum down. It was the right initiative to address a specific set of issues and timely executed. The result was tremendous. We received positive feedback, suggestions relating to areas in need improvement but most of all, members participated, absorbed the views of other members and reflected. The forum went through a self powered recovery. Similarly, the mod team was able to implement a number of small scale initiatives that had wide base of support.

We took time to consider a number of bigger issues and tabled our ideas in a follow up feedback thread. The response was very good but without clear consensus and in a back drop were members were on the whole happy with the status quo, others developed feedback fatigue and/or had underlying worries their cherished forum would be bent out of shape. So on the basis of previous experience, I would reluctant to open up dialogue again in the foreseeable future unless there is a chain of events that precipitates a specific need.

Discussion of this type has a very short shelf life, beyond which there are vastly diminished returns and the increasing risk of internalisation. For this reason, I urge TB to tread very carefully - not for the sake of moderators but in the interest of our members, who represent a broad diverse church and principally come to FT to engage in discussion of travel and miles.

Having had direct experience of opening up a channel for dialogue along the lines proposed, my advice is to proceed with great caution.



Thank you for your input and food for thought.

Could you please provide a link to the thread you mention?

Is this it:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1254219-increasing-gain-ba-board-needs-your-help.html

Thank you for your input and food for thought.

Could you please provide a link to the thread you mention?

Is this it:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1254219-increasing-gain-ba-board-needs-your-help.htmlThe list of feedback threads, in full...

Aug 2007: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/722078-ba-board-stickies-your-thoughts.html

Feb 2009: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/924801-how-can-we-make-ba-board-better-place.html

Feb 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1187973-ba-board-health-check-please-take-moment-review-add-your-comments.html

Aug 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1254219-increasing-gain-ba-board-needs-your-help.html

Sep 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/british-airways-executive-club/1257761-please-read-increasing-gain-improving-ba-board-part-2-a.html

In case you aren't sure, I agree completely. The phrase "not in my purview" simply won't come from my mouth or keyboard (unless I'm quoting it) the next two years. Carol is always free to discard any comment or suggestion I make, but it's not going to change how I go about things.And not from me either!

Kudos to TalkBoard member nsx for deciding to run a beta test of this idea in the forum he moderates, Southwest Rapid Rewards!

So far, very early on, looks like it is improving the FlyerTalk experience for that forum's posters.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/southwest-rapid-rewards/1290614-please-give-us-your-opinions-moderation-forum.htmlJust to prove that I too think that feedback of any kind is warranted, I have blatantly copied nsx's idea and posted in the EK forum...

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/emirates-airlines-skywards/1291111-your-feedback-moderation-forum.htmlAnd I agree as well and have subscribed to both threads to see how it unfolds and my hockey pucks as warranted :)

Based on offline complaints I've heard about some fora, I think it'll only be impactful if it's available in all fora...the only thing is that I would venture to say that the majority of moderators are viewed as doing an excellent job and there's only a few who are overzealous & over-moderate...the challenge is that if you can't speak of specific actions, it's hard to point out the sometimes seemingly stupid moves these specific mods make...and on occassion, when they are pointed out, they are either corrected or ignored...and when they are corrected, the behavior doesn't change in the long run...the same moderator will sometimes make the same seemingly illogical decision...

well said, I'll just add the same goes for positive feedback - hearing a Thank You or kudos recognizes the good work most mods do, while an absence of kudos may trigger a mod to reconsider their approach or attitude.

I have had such a thread in Travel Products for over two years... when first posted, a few comments... and then nothing until I posted on it yesterday.

I have a tendency to get more private messages than public comments... and that is OK... I can work with both.

Then again, Travel Products is not the most controversial forum. I spend more time dealing with spammers than anything else.

I have had such a thread in Travel Products for over two years... when first posted, a few comments... and then nothing until I posted on it yesterday.

I have a tendency to get more private messages than public comments... and that is OK... I can work with both.

Then again, Travel Products is not the most controversial forum. I spend more time dealing with spammers than anything else.

Good for you too!

Now get your butt to NOLA for the Sugar Bowl, baby!

Unfortunately, we are booked to spend New Years in NYC.... hate to miss it, but hate to get disappointed... the Hokies have a way of doing that... and I lived through the Dooley years!

Good for you too!

Now get your butt to NOLA for the Sugar Bowl, baby!

How about a history lesson for any newbies (and not so new "lurkers" like me) that might be following this thread ?

I've see it posted many times that " the TB has no purview over moderation " and I have to ask;
Why was it set up that way ?

Since FT is no longer owned by a single person, is there any posibility, that in the future, the TB can influence "The Powers That Be" to change it ?

I'm trying to understand the reasons, past and present, for the structure of FT, where the elected body seems to have very limited control over what effects the people that elected them and the "moderators serve at the pleasure of" the appointed Community Director.

I know that it's not my playground, so I have to play by the rules. But to me it seems too much like " I'm the parent and I said so ! ".

Thanks,
Mych

How about a history lesson for any newbies (and not so new "lurkers" like me) that might be following this thread ?

I've see it posted many times that " the TB has no purview over moderation " and I have to ask;
Why was it set up that way ?

Since FT is no longer owned by a single person, is there any posibility, that in the future, the TB can influence "The Powers That Be" to change it ?

I'm trying to understand the reasons, past and present, for the structure of FT, where the elected body seems to have very limited control over what effects the people that elected them and the "moderators serve at the pleasure of" the appointed Community Director.

I know that it's not my playground, so I have to play by the rules. But to me it seems too much like " I'm the parent and I said so ! ".

Thanks,
Mych

That's a fantastic question and one which is open to a great deal of historical revisionism.

Here's my take, as someone who has been an active poster since the start of the board:

Basically, once FlyerTalk started to take off, FlyerTalk founder and former owner Randy Petersen set up a dual track of management of his IBB.

He recruited volunteer moderators to clean up spam and enforce the TOS. He shielded these folks from any form of criticism by making ANY discussion of moderation grounds for swift and certain disciplinary action. He wanted his moderators to be answerable to him and him alone.

He also created the TalkBoard so that all members could have some representative input into the creation of the TOS and the forums. For some weird reason (I guess so there could never be discussion of moderation EVER by anyone but him and other moderators) he put an iron curtain between the two management structures.

Anyway, in the end apparently he decided that this created a lot of problems, because after he sold FlyerTalk then left and started his new board he put in place NEITHER a TalkBoard nor moderators.

Instead he has paid moderators and 'guides.' Open discussion of moderation is allowed and management is by fiat.

In any case, we are now under the indirect management of forum owner Internet Brands and direct management of their appointed 'Community Director,' Carol (SanDiego1k).

While IB and Carol have decided to start from exactly where Randy left off, IMHO, Carol is far more open to ideas and constructive criticisms to make FlyerTalk a better and more useful place to visit than Randy was. She is also more organized and consistently engaged.

So, ultimately, it is 'her' board. Some members have been trying to convince her (as well as the moderators) that the way Randy ran things with limited moderator accountability and no collaborative input into day-to-day management squanders the good will and good ideas of forum posters.

This proposal, for example, seeks to create an opportunity for collaborative input on the day-to-day management of forums by that forums' posters. It is an idea that many moderators are implementing on their own and appear to be having a great deal of success with.

That's a Very Good Thing, imho. I suspect that under former management my posting this thread would have gotten me suspended. Today it is an avenue for hopefully making FlyerTalk an even better internet bulletin board.

So you end up with some, like me, pushing for greater input, collaboration and accountability in the day-to-day management. And others who cling to the paradigm of 'never discuss moderation ever.'

Anyway, that's MY take.

Others may have a different take on the history and where that history leaves us today, and where we should take FlyerTalk in the future.

Instead he has paid moderators and 'guides.' Open discussion of moderation is allowed

Not really, LOL, I just tested it by making a few posts in Randy's feedback forum on the other site and they were gone after less than 5 minutes :D.

Same ol', same ol'.

That's what a lot of people miss when they blame some of the individuals here: To a large extent, they were just executing Randy's directives.

I don't expect that to end up being any different at the other site. It starts at the top.

As to the topic of the thread: Yes, I think that is a great idea.

Basically, once FlyerTalk started to take off, FlyerTalk founder and former owner Randy Petersen set up a dual track of management of his IBB.

He recruited volunteer moderators to clean up spam and enforce the TOS. He shielded these folks from any form of criticism by making ANY discussion of moderation grounds for swift and certain disciplinary action. He wanted his moderators to be answerable to him and him alone.

He also created the TalkBoard so that all members could have some representative input into the creation of the TOS and the forums. For some weird reason (I guess so there could never be discussion of moderation EVER by anyone but him and other moderators) he put an iron curtain between the two management structures. Just a bit of revisionist history!

In the beginning, moderation could be discussed more freely on FT. However, it was observed that to do so, didn't make many of the dissatisfied more satisfied. They were dissastified because they profoundly disagreed with the approach to moderation, often because they had been on the board since the beginning and their viewpoint had never changed from that of it being a small board with a handful of members where we all had a thrilling time discussing how great we were. They wanted to carry on being able to post what they wanted where they wanted... along that route lay madness.

And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out, which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened.

Given the choice between allowing these types of conversation to continue to no good effect, or allowing mods to openly speak about other people's discipline, or banning conversation entirely since this is a board about points and miles, Randy chose the third course.

All that meant was that those who were still dissatisfied tried to use TB as an outlet for their dissatisfaction. As a result, and because Randy thought that moderation policy should be independent of popularity contests, TB and moderation were separated.

In a way it is sad. A large amount of dissatisfaction arose (IMHO) because those who were dissatisfied were such because they were not in control of the board, and many of them did not appreciate that loss of control. Yet because of them and the hue and cry they raised against ALL moderation, we lost all ability to discuss moderation honestly and openly. Moderation isn't perfect and it would be great to be able to discuss members' views on some issues (and indeed some of us are able to do this when we reach a point where we are unsure what the forum users want - cf. the thread in Cbuzz on commercialisation of dos).

But at the same time, when you volunteer to do a task to assist/help, only to find someone is willing to lie to everyone else about what you said to them when they overstepped the rules of FT, well forgive us for being human and not wanting to waste our time engaging in trying to refute that kind of lying spin which tells us how evil and capricious we all are.

Sadly, as moderators know, not all people do act reasonably when approached reasonably. Some really, really, really cannot ever admit they overstepped the mark, don't like being told no, or that they behaved badly - and will continue to attempt to argue for the rest of their time on FT that it was all the mods fault... of course not theirs'!

And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out (for example, one might be 'I was suspended for wishing someone a Happy Birthday!' when the member knew full well that was symptom, not the cause), which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened.

How do you know they were lies? Moderation could not be discussed, how would you know who was lying and who wasn't? @:-)

Sounds like discussion of moderation would have allowed the truth to come out, perhaps?

Just a bit of revisionist history!

(snip)

And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out

Funny, I remember an exchange of e-mails I had with a moderator about a suspension in which I expressly gave him permission to show what I had written to anyone he wished.

He, in turn, answered that he does not agree for me to show anyone what he wrote to me.

Which of us do you think was trying to hide something?

Just a bit of revisionist history!

In the beginning, moderation could be discussed more freely on FT. However, it was observed that to do so, didn't make many of the dissatisfied more satisfied. They were dissastified because they profoundly disagreed with the approach to moderation, often because they had been on the board since the beginning and their viewpoint had never changed from that of it being a small board with a handful of members where we all had a thrilling time discussing how great we were. They wanted to carry on being able to post what they wanted where they wanted... along that route lay madness.

And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out, which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened.

Given the choice between allowing these types of conversation to continue to no good effect, or allowing mods to openly speak about other people's discipline, or banning conversation entirely since this is a board about points and miles, Randy chose the third course.

All that meant was that those who were still dissatisfied tried to use TB as an outlet for their dissatisfaction. As a result, and because Randy thought that moderation policy should be independent of popularity contests, TB and moderation were separated.

In a way it is sad. A large amount of dissatisfaction arose (IMHO) because those who were dissatisfied were such because they were not in control of the board, and many of them did not appreciate that loss of control. Yet because of them and the hue and cry they raised against ALL moderation, we lost all ability to discuss moderation honestly and openly. Moderation isn't perfect and it would be great to be able to discuss members' views on some issues (and indeed some of us are able to do this when we reach a point where we are unsure what the forum users want - cf. the thread in Cbuzz on commercialisation of dos).

But at the same time, when you volunteer to do a task to assist/help, only to find someone is willing to lie to everyone else about what you said to them when they overstepped the rules of FT, well forgive us for being human and not wanting to waste our time engaging in trying to refute that kind of lying spin which tells us how evil and capricious we all are.

Sadly, as moderators know, not all people do act reasonably when approached reasonably. Some really, really, really cannot ever admit they overstepped the mark, don't like being told no, or that they behaved badly - and will continue to attempt to argue for the rest of their time on FT that it was all the mods fault... of course not theirs'! {Edited by moderator to reflect changes made by OP in her original post}


Yes, we all have our perspectives.

It is helpful to be able to see the issue from many of them.

Of course, that Randy did things one way does not necessarily make them the best way.

The world does not exist in black and white. Absolutes are a recipe for disaster.

There ARE forms of constructive feedback and collaboration that can make FT a better place.

Those are in place and working in some forums. They should be expanded. That is what this thread is all about.

He shielded these folks from any form of criticism by making ANY discussion of moderation grounds for swift and certain disciplinary action. He wanted his moderators to be answerable to him and him alone.
Swift in removing such posts from public view, yes; disciplinary action as a foregone conclusion is conjecture. Rarely happens in practice.

Let's stay on topic and minimize back and forth argumentative banter.

I see two parts to this discussion: disciplinary actions and thread management (merging, moving, closing, etc.)
Leaving aside the disciplinary actions part of this, I have questions for the Mods;
How can you tell if there are questions about about your moderation style, if no one is allowed to ask ?
How often are you questioned, or called out about it ?
Is it always the same people, or group ?

I think it would be helpful to all if the decision making process of thread management was open to questions publicly without violating the TOS. If members could ask publicly, the public response or lack of response from the moderator would let all know what was going on. If a "question" was obviously snarky, looking for a fight or always from the same person(s) the other members would see that too, and know who is the real trouble maker(s).

Regards,
Mych

People are allowed to ask - we just ask that they do so by PM, not publicly. For some reason though - and I don't understand the reasons I must admit - some people feel they must be allowed to ask publicly, as somehow that is better than getting into a 1:1 with the mods about what concerns them. I don't get the logic behind this I must admit.

On my own forums, I usually hear about it if members are unhappy with what I do. Who it is can vary depending on who is affected by my decision. We've had some regular complainers on one of my forums, who we've tried to engage with to little effect, and on the other, I've had very few questions/comments about moderation - more praise/thanks I think than commentary after some early suspicion when I was appointed.

The regular complainers have dwindled off on the first forum - not satisfied, but also I think realising that we aren't going to shift our moderating position as we don't necessarily agree with their ideas for the forum (we have grown a lot since the early days and as we have done so, so the forum has changed - sometimes, this isn't always recognised by those not involved in the management of the forum).

In a forum like Communitybuzz! what's appropriate for it is somewhat vague 'I'll know it if I see it' - we get a lot of random threads posted (our biggest mod job is actually redirecting threads to more appropriate fora), and trying to decide if something is appropriate or if not, where it should go, is more of an art than a science. We are guided in our decisions by RBPs from the members who use the forums - if a thread receives a lot, then it likely isn't that appropriate for the forum - if we disagree, we may put a note in the thread explaining why we are going to let the thread continue, and members would be free to PM to ask about that. RBPs are a great tool for letting mods get a feeling from the members as to what they like and what they don't like.

I think it would be helpful to all if the decision making process of thread management was open to questions publicly without violating the TOS What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.

What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.

If allowed to ask publicly, others with the same question (and who might be afraid to ask) will see the question and the reply and all will learn how and why the forum works the way it does.

Regards,
Mych

What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.

I'd also add that with a public moderation thread, there can be collaboration among posters and the mods toward best practices for that forum, something that is impossible in 1:1 private conversations.

Another positive: it gives posters an opportunity to provide a public 'thank you for a job well done' to mods....and lets mods as well as other posters know that those posters feel the mods are on the right track if indeed they are.

What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.

Or no response at all, which is the case on one particular forum when I tried to PM the moderator with a very genuine question (ie as to why my posts were being subjected to the letter of the ToS while others with opposing views were not).

What is the difference between being able to ask publicly rather than privately? Afterall, if you are simply asking questions, you'll probably get a better, fuller response in private than in public.Or no response at all, which is the case on one particular forum when I tried to PM the moderator with a very genuine question (ie as to why my posts were being subjected to the letter of the ToS while others with opposing views were not).And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:

And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:

I considered my options and decided that I just couldn't be bothered to take it further. Maybe the Mod had good reasons for his actions, but I'll never know.

Or no response at all, which is the case on one particular forum when I tried to PM the moderator with a very genuine question (ie as to why my posts were being subjected to the letter of the ToS while others with opposing views were not).

And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:

I considered my options and decided that I just couldn't be bothered to take it further. Maybe the Mod had good reasons for his actions, but I'll never know.


IMHO the current CD is not Randy who was always on the road either doing a MR or a related activity to benefit FT and TF. In fact there were many times that it took forever for even a moderator to receive a response from Randy. Carol has proven herself to be much more accessible to all members so I don't buy into this argument that you will be ignored if you reach out to the CD. @:-)

And in this case, what then is the poster to do? Contact the CD about the actions of the Moderator in question? And with no dis-respect meant or intended to the CD whatsoever :), but to use what others have been saying, "it was Randy's policy not to discuss Moderators and moderation,and I see nothing wrong with that", I see the issue for the poster being dead in the water :td:

I usually respond to PM's within a few hours, but once in a while I'm busy working, traveling, or whatever...and it could occasionally take 2 (or more) days. Depending on the nature of the PM, I may want to think through an appropriate response, possibly confer with forum co-moderators (or others) before replying.

If it has been a while since the PM was sent, I'd certainly suggest re-sending it. Use a friendly tone, "just want to make sure you saw this." Depending on the forum(s) the moderator is responsible for, they could get many PM's...and it could have gotten misplaced.

I usually respond to PM's within a few hours, but once in a while I'm busy working, traveling, or whatever...and it could occasionally take 2 (or more) days. Depending on the nature of the PM, I may want to think through an appropriate response, possibly confer with forum co-moderators (or others) before replying.

If it has been a while since the PM was sent, I'd certainly suggest re-sending it. Use a friendly tone, "just want to make sure you saw this." Depending on the forum(s) the moderator is responsible for, they could get many PM's...and it could have gotten misplaced.

Or, it could also be that the moderator decided not to reply to the poster, either because they don't like the poster, so they have a personal grudge, or they felt they didn't need to explain their actions to anyone.

Or, it could also be that the moderator decided not to reply to the poster, either because they don't like the poster, so they have a personal grudge, or they felt they didn't need to explain their actions to anyone.
Do you have any proof that any of those ever actually happen? aztimm is speaking from his own experience - what evidence do you have that those have ever been the motivations behind non-responsiveness?

Or are you just putting those suggestions out there out of your own imagination, with no idea if they have ever actually occurred? You got very upset with me when I suggested you might not care about FT, but you don't seem to have a problem to attributing negative motivations to others... perhaps you should consider your response to me and then reflect how those you are castigating might feel about what you have just said?

... either because they don't like the poster, so they have a personal grudge, or they felt they didn't need to explain their actions to anyone.I would suspect that if a particular Mod really had that type of attitude, over time, there would be posters escalating to the CD. And I would guess if it kept happening, the Mod in question would either change their behavior or the CD would probably "retire" that particular Mod.

And since we're playing the "it could be" game, it could also be that a particular poster is the one harassing the Mod. And I would suspect that just as the Mod might be "retired" if they kept on causing problems, a poster could find themselves "retired" from posting if they kept on causing problems as well.

Or, it could also be that the moderator decided not to reply to the poster, either because they don't like the poster, so they have a personal grudge, or they felt they didn't need to explain their actions to anyone.

Without knowing the details, I can't really give a specific answer to your post. I will say that I personally reply to every PM that is sent to me directly (not necessarily if I am copied on them and someone else replied). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single FT'er who I don't like or have a grudge against. For me, part of being a moderator is being able to overlook any differences in opinion I may have with a poster in the forum and try to at least have a civil discussion.

Do you have any proof that any of those ever actually happen? aztimm is speaking from his own experience - what evidence do you have that those have ever been the motivations behind non-responsiveness?

Or are you just putting those suggestions out there out of your own imagination, with no idea if they have ever actually occurred? You got very upset with me when I suggested you might not care about FT, but you don't seem to have a problem to attributing negative motivations to others... perhaps you should consider your response to me and then reflect how those you are castigating might feel about what you have just said?
So, I need to have proof, yet if someone is unresponsive to a PM, because they feel they don't need to explain their actions, that's not proof, since after all, they didn't send a PM that said, "I am not explaining my actions." :rolleyes:

I'm fairly confident that most moderators do a good job, try not to allow personal feelings to color their judgement, and are rather responsive to PM's. However, there are some who have demonstrated that if one disagrees with their opinions on something, they act like a spoiled child. They may not reply to a PM from the poster, because they feel they do not have to explain their why they treated that poster in one way, while treating another one differently, when both violated the TOS, or may personally attack that poster, etc.
Without knowing the details, I can't really give a specific answer to your post. I will say that I personally reply to every PM that is sent to me directly (not necessarily if I am copied on them and someone else replied). Off the top of my head, I can't think of a single FT'er who I don't like or have a grudge against. For me, part of being a moderator is being able to overlook any differences in opinion I may have with a poster in the forum and try to at least have a civil discussion.
See, to me, this is part of the problem. One cannot share details or concerns per the TOS, so one cannot give a specific answer.

Yes, you say you are able to overlook any differences in opinion to try to at least have a civil discussion, and I'm certain that most moderators feel the same. However, again, it's those who either don't feel they should do that or who are unable to do that who are a concern to me.

Please review the Community Director's message regarding the TalkBoard and Moderation. As a consequence of her positive and clear statements, I'm closing this thread:


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1293763-my-thoughts-2012-talkboard.html