TalkBoard Topics - How to de-marginalize the TB and create more opportunities for collaboration

The TB's structure is set up to make it very difficult to do even simple things. I know, because a few years ago I took the lead in writing down the TB guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/918161-what-talkboard-how-new-forums-other-suggestions-considered.html) out of the various precedents and traditions that the TalkBoard used to operate under.

Given that other power structures in FT (ie, the moderator corps and/or ad-hoc committees convened to address FT issue) do not suffer from this inherent inefficiency it only makes sense that management would prefer to defer to those power structures in examining and working on 'problems.' This has led to some decisions being taken on what appears to be an ad hoc basis.

IMHO, the TalkBoard is being marginalized into irrelevancy by it's inefficiency. Since the TB is meant to the the voice of the posters and vox populi vox Dei, I think we need to re-evaluate how to make the TB both a more efficient voice and also expand participation in the Board.

In order to achieve efficiency, the first step might be to reduce the requirements for the TB to make a recommendation from 2/3 vote to simple majority vote. Requiring a 2/3 majority to make a recommendation places an incredibly high barrier to decision-making. Frankly If I were the Community Director I would not want to work with a body that requires near-consensus to fix problems because it's just not efficient. Would you? Simply majority vote requirements will immediately make the TB more efficient and a better resource for the CD to address problems as they arise and improve FlyerTalk.

Another step might be to create a TB committee process, such that committees could be set up and charged with examining some of the systemic issues that FT faces. By dividing the work perhaps we can work more deeply and efficiently.

I believe that these committees would work best if they were led by TB members as Chairmen, but populated by any and all FT members who cared to volunteer for that committee. These would not be standing committees, but committees created to address issues that require long-term, sustained examination and discussion. This would vastly expand the number of volunteers who get to have a more formal collaborative input into both the day-to-day as well as the strategic direction of FlyerTalk.

The TB and/or CD could come up with specific committees, but I would think they might over time address issues such as:
technology
moderator best practices
TOS review and revision
forum opening/closing standards
forum 'crisis' management

The Committees could constructively explore issues in greater depth than 9 TB members with limited time can, and could make recommendations to the TB who would then decide whether make those recommendations to the CD.

This may sound like a lot of bureaucracy, but I think in practice it's just going to mean having more people have a more formal opportunity for input. Apparently something similar took place regarding the decision to split the Travel Safety and Security forum and that process worked well enough on an ad hoc basis....but it could have worked just as well within the structure of a more efficient TalkBoard instead of being done on an ad hoc basis.

Anyway, those are a couple of my suggestions for de-marginalizing the TB, for going after the big-picture issues facing FlyerTalk and making the TalkBoard process a better voice for the posters by creating more opportunities for collaborative input into the management of FlyerTalk.

Hopefully other posters have other ideas that we can talk about too.

Because frankly the other options of continuing to limp along like a neutered puppy, or shutting the TB down and ceding what little input the TB has left to those who are assuming more and more of that authority in the absence of TB's ability to wield that authority efficiently. Neither of those options is particularly appealing to me and imho are not in the best interests of FlyerTalk.

Give the TB some real power. I've used this as an example before, but it takes an act of TB to get a new forum going - and evidence of need must be provided, yet after it's set up, it's now the "purview" of the moderators.

So, they set them up but don't get a say what goes in them :confused:

If they're just an advisory committee, essentially just to set up or remove forums, quite honestly, why bother? The CD could probably handle the request and evidence herself - there aren't that many each year.

Let's get this thread back on track.

This may sound like a lot of bureaucracy

Yes, yes it does and IMHO no good can come from a plethora of committees making equally as non-binding recommendations to the CD as TB already does now. Sorry but I'm of the opinion that the answer to anything isn't more bureaucracy.

If we truly want the voice of the people to be heard in a more effective and direct fashion I'd favor more of a proposition type of voting being held every TB election. Should enough members speak their minds about something TB can't or won't address then set a process to bring these matters to the members annually and let their results be forwarded on to the CD if the voters approve. Surely the technology could handle one or two questions beyond the simple ballot we use in TB election at present.

While far from a perfect system IMHO it empowers members more than filtering their input through a series of committees that could dilute the message. That is, of course, only MHO.

I think the best way to de-marginalise TB is not to have it become a plethora of committees (which can be good, but also can be very long winded and slow - particularly in an IBB setting such as this, where conversations take days to be held) but instead for TB to stop trying to power grab, demonise others it feels threatened by, but start working productively, preferably in co-operation rather than in adversarial battle with those it would seek to demonise and control and not be riven by internal politics.

It would also be good if TB could be a bit more proactive again - which I admit, kokonutz and some others are trying to be, but also not brush off genuine concerns where mods/members have sought assistance, and where TB has refused to help.

I know, I'm off to write my letter to Santa Claus now as well! ;)

I think the best way to de-marginalise TB is not to have it become a plethora of committees (which can be good, but also can be very long winded and slow - particularly in an IBB setting such as this, where conversations take days to be held) but instead for TB to stop trying to power grab, demonise others it feels threatened by, but start working productively, preferably in co-operation rather than in adversarial battle with those it would seek to demonise and control and not be riven by internal politics. I agree with your underlying sentiment. Realize, however, that the idea that 'power grabs' are taking place work in both directions. Examples abound of demonization from mods directed towards any efforts to improve FlyerTalk that does not fit in the neat little box that some mods would like to keep the TB in.

So yes, the 'us-vs.-them' view that many moderators and posters seem to hold is unhelpful. We are all ON THE SAME TEAM. Team FlyerTalk.

I believe that everyone wants FT to be the best place it can be, even if we sometimes have different ideas of what that might be and how to get there.

It would also be good if TB could be a bit more proactive again - which I admit, kokonutz and some others are trying to be, but also not brush off genuine concerns where mods/members have sought assistance, and where TB has refused to help.

I know, I'm off to write my letter to Santa Claus now as well! ;)

I think that there is a hell of a lot of room for better collaboration between the TB and the mod corps. It seems really stupid and inefficient to me that this iron curtain hangs between them. I think Randy created a system of governance that is set up to fail in the long run, with collaborative input allowed on the cosmetics but not on the meat. Can you be more specific as to the areas where mods have sought assistance where TB refused to help?

Here are some ideas that I have suggested to improve TB/mod corps collaboration:

- Joint projects between the TB and Mod corps in dealing with 'problem' forums. Not sure why TS/S was not handled this way, but that's water under the bridge now. As I say above, I believe one reason NOT to work with the TB is the ridiculously high bar required to get anything recommended. We ought to fix that and make a simple majority recommend rather than 2/3.

- Make the private forums of the TB and Mod corps read-only available to the other group so each group can know what the other is dealing with/working on.

Unfortunately, there is so much distrust. It's a real black helicopter war out there sometimes.


I also still think there ought to be more opportunities for more formal input by posters.

And here's another area for deep and long consideration:

- What does 'commercial' mean?

There's not much I can disagree with in there. I've actually suggested previously a shared private forum between mods and TB members (I don't see TB/mods giving up the ability to get on with their jobs without 'outsiders' looking in) so we actually have an opportunity to discuss in private. That would also give more of an opportunity to have a space to discuss forum management issues (I believe AF/KLM has previously asked to have a catchall third subforum for airlines like KQ, who use the same mileage programme, but are discussed in a disassociated forum elsewhere, but has been refused).

I would agree that mods have taken on more of TB's role... but I also think it's fair to say most of us have not rushed to do it either, and have tended to do so out of frustration over the inaction at times. Should I come to TB to ask for a name change for the VS forum, and risk several weeks of wrangling over the meaning of the word's 'Virgin' and 'Atlantic' only for it to be decided it isn't important enough to vote on, or should I ask just ask Carol for a forum name change.....

There's not much I can disagree with in there. I've actually suggested previously a shared private forum between mods and TB members (I don't see TB/mods giving up the ability to get on with their jobs without 'outsiders' looking in) so we actually have an opportunity to discuss in private. That would also give more of an opportunity to have a space to discuss forum management issues (I believe AF/KLM has previously asked to have a catchall third subforum for airlines like KQ, who use the same mileage programme, but are discussed in a disassociated forum elsewhere, but has been refused). I like the way you think, lady. Hey, how about BOTH: read-only each other's private forums and have a third for collaboration?

We could see where the other is coming from and collaborate on solutions that take into account each group's unique perspectives and priorities.

I would agree that mods have taken on more of TB's role... but I also think it's fair to say most of us have not rushed to do it either, and have tended to do so out of frustration over the inaction at times. Should I come to TB to ask for a name change for the VS forum, and risk several weeks of wrangling over the meaning of the word's 'Virgin' and 'Atlantic' only for it to be decided it isn't important enough to vote on, or should I ask just ask Carol for a forum name change.....

I understand your frustration. I can see your desire to balance input vs. decisive action, and clearly the TB process is broken when the barriers to making even the simplest changes seem insurmountable.

Hopefully going from 2/3 to simple majority to move decisions would help alleviate some of that frustration. Can you (or anyone else!?) think of any other ways to make the TB a more efficient decision-taking body?

I like the way you think, lady. Hey, how about BOTH: read-only each other's private forums and have a third for collaboration?

We could see where the other is coming from and collaborate on solutions that take into account each group's unique perspectives and priorities.



I understand your frustration. I can see your desire to balance input vs. decisive action, and clearly the TB process is broken when the barriers to making even the simplest changes seem insurmountable.

Hopefully going from 2/3 to simple majority to move decisions would help alleviate some of that frustration. Can you (or anyone else!?) think of any other ways to make the TB a more efficient decision-taking body?

Personally, I feel that the two week voting period for some topics is way too long and during that period topics get beaten to death. I travel, everyone travels. Even when I travel, I'm connected to the Internet. I would be pretty confident that even at my busiest I could vote on just about everything in less than 5 days.

I don't see TB/mods giving up the ability to get on with their jobs without 'outsiders' looking in

Having read some of the gossip and personal attacks in the private Mod Forum I can certainly understand why the Mods would not like to have others see what they are saying.

(Just for kicks, take a look at the thread about the first(?) Mod Do and see how many Mods were complaining that a specific member of TalkBoard had been included in Randy's invitation -- and how they would never have spent their own money to go there if they knew they might meet him.)

Having read some of the gossip and personal attacks in the private Mod Forum I can certainly understand why the Mods would not like to have others see what they are saying.

I can't speak to what the forum was 8 or 9 years ago. I can say this is an inaccurate and unfair representation of what it has been for several years, both under Randy's leadership and now under mine.

Personally, I feel that the two week voting period for some topics is way too long and during that period topics get beaten to death. I travel, everyone travels. Even when I travel, I'm connected to the Internet. I would be pretty confident that even at my busiest I could vote on just about everything in less than 5 days.

The TB Guidelines allow for a shorter period provided all TB members have cast their ballots.

The TB Guidelines allow for a shorter period provided all TB members have cast their ballots.

Yes, but the problem is that all it takes is one TB member to slow things down for up to 2 weeks. I'd be in favor of reducing the voting period from 2 weeks to a week or 5 days in the name of efficiency.

Yes, but the problem is that all it takes is one TB member to slow things down for up to 2 weeks. I'd be in favor of reducing the voting period from 2 weeks to a week or 5 days in the name of efficiency.

Exactly.

koko, I was barely able to gain approval for eliminating the practice of counting Abstain the same as No. That was a minuscule relaxation of the supermajority requirement. I'm sure no TalkBoard will approve a change to a simple majority threshold.

As to standing committees, that's not my idea of how to accomplish anything.

Here's my suggestion: Nothing is impossible for the person who doesn't care who gets the credit. Every idea that surfaces here is seen by the TalkBoard, many moderators, and the Community Director. The best ideas will be implemented in some fashion by one or more of these groups.

As long as it improves FT, does an idea really need to pass through the TalkBoard? Apparently for some people (no you, koko!) the answer is Yes.

Edited to add: koko, you can read the history of the Abstain proposal in the private TB forum to see how challenging that was.

I can't speak to what the forum was 8 or 9 years ago. I can say this is an inaccurate and unfair representation of what it has been for several years, both under Randy's leadership and now under mine.

The specific thread to which I referred occured in 2005 -- 6 years ago.

I could cite other, later, threads in which the pettiness of some moderators was evident.

In one case, at least two mods came onto the thread to express their disgust at what others had posted. I know that both you and Randy were familiar with this particular thread as you both posted on it.

To be absolutely clear neither one of you was involved in the gossiping and sniping in this thread and, in fact, Randy stopped it.

Still, the very fact that it existed, and the moderators who were the most offensive remained moderators for years afterwards, shows that personal attacks, which were made where 80+ mods could read them, did not result in any action being taken against the mods involved.

That thread, like the one I mentioned earlier, and others which I could cite, demonstrate to me why I believe that even the best moderators would not like to have the warts revealed.

That being said, I do believe that the change to only allowing moderators of a specific forum to see threads involving that forum was a major step towards cleaning up the private forum.

Yes, but the problem is that all it takes is one TB member to slow things down for up to 2 weeks. I'd be in favor of reducing the voting period from 2 weeks to a week or 5 days in the name of efficiency.

Was there any discussion given to shorter voting period in version II of the TB Guidelines adopted in '08? And if sowhy was two weeks the consensus?

I'd be curious to learn how many times in the calendar year the balloting went the full two weeks as stat.'s like that would help confirm of refute claims of inefficiency.

Ironically it was after all your motion that adopted the current set of TB Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/881885-voting-complete-motion-passed-new-talkboard-guidelines-ver-2-a.html) so one could wonder why you're concerned about inefficiencies you helped create.

koko, I was barely able to gain approval for eliminating the practice of counting Abstain the same as No. That was a minuscule relaxation of the supermajority requirement. I'm sure no TalkBoard will approve a change to a simple majority threshold.
Why not try? If you try, you might be surprised how it turns out with a new TalkBoard. You might be correct, but it also tells the members who voted for or against it. If enough people feel strongly that TalkBoard should change to a simple majority, then perhaps those who voted against it will find themselves no longer on TalkBoard after the next election cycle.

The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting and that there should be consensus on motions is really rather, well, disappointing to some extent. I would rather see votes on issues, even if it will not pass, because then, when elections roll around again, I know, as a voter, who supported the issues I support and who did not, and have a better idea of who deserves my vote.

The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting and that there should be consensus on motions is really rather, well, disappointing to some extent. I would rather see votes on issues, even if it will not pass, because then, when elections roll around again, I know, as a voter, who supported the issues I support and who did not, and have a better idea of who deserves my vote.

You did not notice that I did exactly this on the current term limits proposal? I'm the loudest advocate for consensus before voting, but some big questions deserve a vote if there is a decent chance to pass or, as you say, if it's important to know where the TB members stand. For small issues, it's not worth damaging the team atmosphere to force votes. JMO.

Why not try? If you try, you might be surprised how it turns out with a new TalkBoard. You might be correct, but it also tells the members who voted for or against it. If enough people feel strongly that TalkBoard should change to a simple majority, then perhaps those who voted against it will find themselves no longer on TalkBoard after the next election cycle.

The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting and that there should be consensus on motions is really rather, well, disappointing to some extent. I would rather see votes on issues, even if it will not pass, because then, when elections roll around again, I know, as a voter, who supported the issues I support and who did not, and have a better idea of who deserves my vote.

I'd give it some time. I suspect there will be a vote on this and many other things once the holidays are behind us.

You did not notice that I did exactly this on the current term limits proposal? I'm the loudest advocate for consensus before voting, but some big questions deserve a vote if there is a decent chance to pass or, as you say, if it's important to know where the TB members stand. For small issues, it's not worth damaging the team atmosphere to force votes. JMO.
As a voter, I would like to know where my representatives stand on all issues, and not have them determine what the big or small issues are for me. I'd rather leave that up to each voter to determine what the big issues are to them.
I'd give it some time. I suspect there will be a vote on this and many other things once the holidays are behind us.
I figured that with the holidays and such, things would take a bit. I'm not complaining about the speed of things just yet. :)

Was there any discussion given to shorter voting period in version II of the TB Guidelines adopted in '08? And if sowhy was two weeks the consensus?

I'd be curious to learn how many times in the calendar year the balloting went the full two weeks as stat.'s like that would help confirm of refute claims of inefficiency.

Ironically it was after all your motion that adopted the current set of TB Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/881885-voting-complete-motion-passed-new-talkboard-guidelines-ver-2-a.html) so one could wonder why you're concerned about inefficiencies you helped create.

Guilt. Guilt over how inefficient those guidelines turned out to be drives me to fix them. :)

IIRC, the 2 weeks was a long-standing tradition that was simply codified by the guidelines.

Recall that in 2008 (when the guidelines were written) and before, BlackBerrys were fairly common but not nearly as ubiquitous as iPhones, iPads and Androids are today, meaning there was a certain quaint notion that one had to be in front of a computer to engage in TB business. That is obviously no longer the case.

Why not try? If you try, you might be surprised how it turns out with a new TalkBoard. You might be correct, but it also tells the members who voted for or against it. If enough people feel strongly that TalkBoard should change to a simple majority, then perhaps those who voted against it will find themselves no longer on TalkBoard after the next election cycle.

The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting and that there should be consensus on motions is really rather, well, disappointing to some extent. I would rather see votes on issues, even if it will not pass, because then, when elections roll around again, I know, as a voter, who supported the issues I support and who did not, and have a better idea of who deserves my vote.
Actually, it gets ridiculous when not enough time is given to getting the wording correct, voting starts, and then someone points out a problem with the wording. I'd rather TB spent time getting it right first than spend time chucking things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Some of us care about FT, and don't want change for change sakes' - we want change which will improve the experience, not inadvertently make it worse as the implications for a motion were not thought through first.

We've had situations where something has been voted and then had to be reworded because it was cocked up - it isn't pretty.

Was there any discussion given to shorter voting period in version II of the TB Guidelines adopted in '08? And if sowhy was two weeks the consensus?

I'd be curious to learn how many times in the calendar year the balloting went the full two weeks as stat.'s like that would help confirm of refute claims of inefficiency.

Ironically it was after all your motion that adopted the current set of TB Guidelines (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/881885-voting-complete-motion-passed-new-talkboard-guidelines-ver-2-a.html) so one could wonder why you're concerned about inefficiencies you helped create.
In 2008, we had a member who frequently voted at the very last minute because that was their right and entitlement, even when they knew they were holding up the process..... I doubt we'd have got consensus to make the limit less than 2 weeks.

And also connectivity has come on leaps and bounds since then.

Recall that in 2008 (when the guidelines were written) and before, BlackBerrys were fairly common but not nearly as ubiquitous as iPhones, iPads and Androids are today, meaning there was a certain quaint notion that one had to be in front of a computer to engage in TB business. That is obviously no longer the case.

Granted though am still curious as to how many TB votes went the full two weeks this year.

Actually, it gets ridiculous when not enough time is given to getting the wording correct, voting starts, and then someone points out a problem with the wording. I'd rather TB spent time getting it right first than spend time chucking things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Some of us care about FT, and don't want change for change sakes' - we want change which will improve the experience, not inadvertently make it worse as the implications for a motion were not thought through first.

We've had situations where something has been voted and then had to be reworded because it was cocked up - it isn't pretty.
I don't believe I said I didn't want time being given to getting the wording correct, I said that the thought of, "Must build consensus before voting begins," was disappointing.

Thanks for saying I don't care about FT. :mad:

Can only speak for when I've been on board, but we haven't really had anyone try to stretch things out for 2 weeks just to stretch things out. Knowing the current board, I don't see them doing the stretching just to stretch either.

Sometimes votes will go quickly; sometimes they don't, because TB members want to garner the most input before casting their vote. It's the name of the game, and varies with each vote/topic.

"Hot button" issues have a tendency to go longer in the voting process than somewhat more mundane ones - and that's fine.

I have no problem w/ the 2 week timeframe. For one thing, it gives us time to listen to our constituents - FTers - their pros/cons/ideas. Sometimes the input is repetitive (which actually can help in either direction), but sometimes people post additional info that really provides good input that we might not get if we shut it down sooner.

And yes, the 2 week timeframe DOES take into consideration the fact that TB members have 'real lives' & sometimes FT/TB isn't #1 on their agenda for the day or a few days, or they don't have internet access.

Recently I was off FT for a few days due to work; I know we have another TB member who is off for a few. And even if I have email/internet access, doesn't mean I can spend limited available time on FT. Reading all the threads for input and/or responding can take up quite a bit of time. And yes, there are times when TB members are w/o i-net, whether it be because they're on vacation (and not checking work or FT), or they're somewhere where i-net is not available (such as where I'll be next week & where a dif TB member was this summer).

I'm an active TB member, both in the public & private forums. I try to participate as much as possible. But I'm never going to apologize for not being available 24/7/365.

Having 2 weeks available allows for input by FTers and also allows for real-life stuff. I don't see a need to shorten the timeframe just because some are ADD :) :p :D

Cheers.

I don't believe I said I didn't want time being given to getting the wording correct, I said that the thought of, "Must build consensus before voting begins," was disappointing.

Thanks for saying I don't care about FT. :mad:
Oh I'm sorry, I must have read your statement:
The general attitude that motions should be hammered out before being proposed for voting...s really rather, well, disappointing to some extent wrongly. Did you not mean to say that time should not be spent hammering out motions? Perhaps an edit to make your meaning clearer could be beneficial?

The specific thread to which I referred occured in 2005 -- 6 years ago.

I could cite other, later, threads in which the pettiness of some moderators was evident.

In one case, at least two mods came onto the thread to express their disgust at what others had posted. I know that both you and Randy were familiar with this particular thread as you both posted on it.

To be absolutely clear neither one of you was involved in the gossiping and sniping in this thread and, in fact, Randy stopped it.

Still, the very fact that it existed, and the moderators who were the most offensive remained moderators for years afterwards, shows that personal attacks, which were made where 80+ mods could read them, did not result in any action being taken against the mods involved.

That thread, like the one I mentioned earlier, and others which I could cite, demonstrate to me why I believe that even the best moderators would not like to have the warts revealed.

That being said, I do believe that the change to only allowing moderators of a specific forum to see threads involving that forum was a major step towards cleaning up the private forum.
But then TB has been similarly bad at times, hasn't it Dovster? There was certainly that motion you wanted to make, and indeed which I offered to second, which, had it seen the light of day (and that is why I said I'd second it) would have caused much consternation when the members saw what or indeed who was the subject of conversation on the private forum and how it/they were being discussed.

Since you are busy revealing what you have seen - illicitly - on old threads from TT, perhaps it's also a good idea to delve into the mirkier side of TB, the stuff that some of the TB members wouldn't want revealed to the public? Incidents like that I am talking around above... or the times TB members lied on the public forum about what they had said/done on the private forum and if we tried to enlighten the membership, they used the 'confidentiality' clause to silence us?

I'm very sorry to drag up such ancient history... I consider it in the past and TB has thankfully moved on since then - but I do think that it's only fair to bring this up if you are castigating mods for their behaviour in the past, just to show that neither side has been without sin.

But then TB has been similarly bad at times, hasn't it Dovster? There was certainly that motion you wanted to make, and indeed which I offered to second, which, had it seen the light of day (and that is why I said I'd second it) would have caused much consternation when the members saw what or indeed who was the subject of conversation on the private forum and how it/they were being discussed.

Let's be clear about exactly what that motion was. It was not gossip -- it involved a member (to be exact, a person who was a moderator at the time) who repeatedly made posts in TB Topics threads which resulted in those threads being shut down.

After this happened quite a few times, and the TB Topics moderators at the time did not take disciplinary action against him, but continued to lock otherwise valid threads, I felt that TB should take action in order to keep TB Topics from being basically shut down by this one member.

I suggested that we pass a motion blocking him from participating in TB Topics. As there were enough moderators on TB to stop any such action ("it is not in our purview") it would clearly be impossible to get the motion passed, so it was not made.

Actually, it gets ridiculous when not enough time is given to getting the wording correct, voting starts, and then someone points out a problem with the wording. I'd rather TB spent time getting it right first than spend time chucking things at the wall and seeing what sticks.

Some of us care about FT, and don't want change for change sakes' - we want change which will improve the experience, not inadvertently make it worse as the implications for a motion were not thought through first.

We've had situations where something has been voted and then had to be reworded because it was cocked up - it isn't pretty.

Completely agree it wasn't pretty to see a motion pass yet upon further review and wordsmithing see the second motion on the matter fail after some TBers changed their minds between the two votes.

This doesn't mean only votes that have a chance of passing come to the public as that sort of compromising can create gridlock but rather motions made be carefully vetted for the language used and that the excecution is correct the first time.

FWIW, 5 days is way to fast. I go on 4-night camping trip & music festivals a couple of times a year...2 weeks is good for multiple reasons, IMHO:

1) Travel Schedules

2) Some TB members, in the past, have been a little too quick to get motions made and seconded without even thinking about them - and some motions have been made & seconded with adequate time for member commentary - 2 weeks allows for this.

3) Not be accused of being slow (because I usually do vote within a week), but is there anything that's that relevant than additional few days is going to make that much of a difference? Really?

FWIW, 5 days is way to slow. I go on 4-night camping trip & music festivals a couple of times a year...2 weeks is good for multiple reasons, IMHO:

1) Travel Schedules

2) Some TB members, in the past, have been a little too quick to get motions made and seconded without even thinking about them - and some motions have been made & seconded with adequate time for member commentary - 2 weeks allows for this.

3) Not be accused of being slow (because I usually do vote within a week), but is there anything that's that relevant than additional few days is going to make that much of a difference? Really?

I agree with your 3 points, but do think you meant to say in your first sentence before the 3 points, "way too fast", not "way too slow", but correct me if I'm wrong. It's late. I could be.

Cheers.

The specific thread to which I referred occured in 2005 -- 6 years ago.

I could cite other, later, threads in which the pettiness of some moderators was evident.

In one case, at least two mods came onto the thread to express their disgust at what others had posted. I know that both you and Randy were familiar with this particular thread as you both posted on it.

To be absolutely clear neither one of you was involved in the gossiping and sniping in this thread and, in fact, Randy stopped it.

Still, the very fact that it existed, and the moderators who were the most offensive remained moderators for years afterwards, shows that personal attacks, which were made where 80+ mods could read them, did not result in any action being taken against the mods involved.

That thread, like the one I mentioned earlier, and others which I could cite, demonstrate to me why I believe that even the best moderators would not like to have the warts revealed.

That being said, I do believe that the change to only allowing moderators of a specific forum to see threads involving that forum was a major step towards cleaning up the private forum.

That you make these accusations is really offensive. You are a "journalist." If you want to make these claims, please list your sources.

We've had situations where something has been voted and then had to be reworded because it was cocked up - it isn't pretty.

Well in truth that was one of my motions and I did get it wrong. However I wasn't allowed to fix the wording whilst the vote was on despite the intent being totally clear to everyone. This 'rule' was later changed to allow wording to be changed after voting started. Perhaps this depends on who has proposed a motion rather than what the mistake is?

And yes, the 2 week timeframe DOES take into consideration the fact that TB members have 'real lives' & sometimes FT/TB isn't #1 on their agenda for the day or a few days, or they don't have internet access.

Recently I was off FT for a few days due to work; I know we have another TB member who is off for a few. And even if I have email/internet access, doesn't mean I can spend limited available time on FT. Reading all the threads for input and/or responding can take up quite a bit of time. And yes, there are times when TB members are w/o i-net, whether it be because they're on vacation (and not checking work or FT), or they're somewhere where i-net is not available (such as where I'll be next week & where a dif TB member was this summer).



Then honestly should you be standing as a member of TB? Mods are required to check FT daily (with some exception), how about the same self imposed requirement on TB members?

That you make these accusations is really offensive. You are a "journalist." If you want to make these claims, please list your sources.

I think you know well that a journalist does not reveal his sources. I will be willing, however, to give SanDiego1K, if she so desires, enough information about each of these threads so that she can find them with a very quick search and read them for herself.

If she then desires to let anyone else see them, that will be up to her.

I purposely did not name anyone who did the gossiping and made the personal attacks but if she wishes to do so that would be something else.

Let's be clear about exactly what that motion was. It was not gossip -- it involved a member (to be exact, a person who was a moderator at the time) who repeatedly made posts in TB Topics threads which resulted in those threads being shut down.

After this happened quite a few times, and the TB Topics moderators at the time did not take disciplinary action against him, but continued to lock otherwise valid threads, I felt that TB should take action in order to keep TB Topics from being basically shut down by this one member.

I suggested that we pass a motion blocking him from participating in TB Topics. As there were enough moderators on TB to stop any such action ("it is not in our purview") it would clearly be impossible to get the motion passed, so it was not made.
I'm sure the mods you are impinging could produce similar such justification for their acts too :rolleyes:

Let's face it - you did exactly what you are alledging the mods did. You used a private forum to complain and snipe at a member who did not have access to that forum to see what was being written about him and what you were talking about was out of your responsibilty as a TB member, ergo, you were not acting as a TB member when you chose to attack this member in private. It wasn't the only time it happened on the private TB forum, it was just the most egregrious.

You can dress it up how you like - try to pretend it was for the good of TB - but what you did was no better than what you are accusing the mods of apparently doing.

Um, all of this happened six years ago? :confused:

Um, all of this happened six years ago? :confused:
Sadly, yes. Some people like to pick at a bone for years...

But it is a good reminder to bring us back to the present! Suitably rebuked :o :)

You used a private forum to complain and snipe at a member who did not have access to that forum to see what was being written about him and what you were talking about was out of your responsibilty as a TB member, ergo, you were not acting as a TB member when you chose to attack this member in private.

Whew! That is one heck of a run on sentence.

"In private"? Clearly not. If TB had been willing to take the step that I urged the motion would have been made public and with me as its sponsor.

Besides, the member knew about it immediately (as I was certain that he would). The private TB forum is about as leakproof as the private Mod forum.

But then TB has been similarly bad at times, hasn't it Dovster? There was certainly that motion you wanted to make, and indeed which I offered to second, which, had it seen the light of day (and that is why I said I'd second it) would have caused much consternation when the members saw what or indeed who was the subject of conversation on the private forum and how it/they were being discussed.

Since you are busy revealing what you have seen - illicitly - on old threads from TT, perhaps it's also a good idea to delve into the mirkier side of TB, the stuff that some of the TB members wouldn't want revealed to the public? Incidents like that I am talking around above... or the times TB members lied on the public forum about what they had said/done on the private forum and if we tried to enlighten the membership, they used the 'confidentiality' clause to silence us?

I'm very sorry to drag up such ancient history... I consider it in the past and TB has thankfully moved on since then - but I do think that it's only fair to bring this up if you are castigating mods for their behaviour in the past, just to show that neither side has been without sin.

The TB has indeed been very naughty in the past in the private TB forum. :td:

I think one thing that could make it better is to give all posters read-only access to the TB forum.

I think that should also happen for the private moderator forum.

Sunlight has an antiseptic effect.

Of course, we all know that will never happen, alas. Too many skeletons to be kept buried.

Luckily we do have a CD who is far more engaged and fair than the previous management was. ^

Not sure how any of this can make the TB more efficient, though....

I think one thing that could make it better is to give all posters read-only access to the TB forum.

I think that should also happen for the private moderator forum.
"Not happening. End of." -- DCI Gene Hunt

For the sake of TB's credibility, it's time to move on.

"Not happening. End of." -- DCI Gene Hunt

For the sake of TB's credibility, it's time to move on.

Your opinion. Clearly not koko's. Possibly not mine.

Let's concentrate on how we can make the thing work better in the future, rather than pick over old scrawny bones.

Agree. Time to move on folks and work for the present & future not wallow in the past.

I think one thing that could make it better is to give all posters read-only access to the TB forum.

I think that should also happen for the private moderator forum.

Sunlight has an antiseptic effect.

Of course, we all know that will never happen, alas. Too many skeletons to be kept buried.


Just keep the old private forums and make them read-only for the current set of moderators/TB. Open up two new read-only forums for the public to be used from whenever such a motion is (of might be) passed. Old skeletons remain from public sight and everyone gets a fresh start. The history remains for the continuing moderators/TB to see.

If the mods don't want open up their forum, TB can be a start and show them that it works.

"Not happening. End of." -- DCI Gene Hunt
“It’s kind of fun to do the impossible.” -- Walt Disney


For the sake of TB's credibility, it's time to move on.

Past is prologue. Well, it can be if we fail to learn from it.

This thread is meant to be about improving the management of FT by making the TB more efficient and having the TB and the mod corps collaborate more (heck, at all!).

I don't think it's healthy to wallow in the past. But if there are lessons to be learned we should learn them.

Your opinion. Clearly not koko's. Possibly not mine.Incredulous as it may seem, members do PM mods for reasons unrelated to moderation. It's not just my opinion that TB needs to move on from these silly strung out convos, but rank and file members who are beginning to wonder what's "really going on" here, whether it's just friendly differences of opinion or old vendettas. Perhaps it's time to rethink the tactic of banging on and on about matters that really aren't within the board's purview. Yeah, I know it rankles some to read that but there are limits to others' patience. For your own sake and those you claim to represent please consider whether the continued hostility is good for the membership and the future of TB itself.

“It’s kind of fun to do the impossible.” -- Walt Disney
Appalling. Has it occurred to you that others don't view TB as your plaything?

Appalling. Has it occurred to you that others don't view TB as your plaything?

Whom, other than yourself, are you speaking for? I do not remember seeing your name on the ballot. At least Koko had x amount of votes for TB, so clearly others may also agree with Koko and would not mind seeing him succeeding in de-marginalizing TB (which was the topic of the thread).

However, I can agree that you don't view TB as his plaything. Two different statements IMHO.

Whom, other than yourself, are you speaking for?
I'm expressing my view as a regular member.

Incredulous as it may seem, members do PM mods for reasons unrelated to moderation. It's not just my opinion that TB needs to move on from these silly strung out convos, but rank and file members who are beginning to wonder what's "really going on" here, whether it's just friendly differences of opinion or old vendettas. Perhaps it's time to rethink the tactic of banging on and on about matters that really aren't within the board's purview. Yeah, I know it rankles some to read that but there are limits to others' patience. For your own sake and those you claim to represent please consider whether the continued hostility is good for the membership and the future of TB itself.

Hostile? Where do you read hostility in anything that Rich (or I) have written?

To the contrary, I have tried very hard to remain positive and constructive. Can you say the same about your own posts?

I very much understand that some folks like the status quo. I'm sorry if my looking for ways to improve the FT experience is threatening to you or spiff or cblaisd or other posters.

But as I said in post 6 of this thread:

So yes, the 'us-vs.-them' view that many moderators and posters seem to hold is unhelpful. We are all ON THE SAME TEAM. Team FlyerTalk.

I believe that everyone wants FT to be the best place it can be, even if we sometimes have different ideas of what that might be and how to get there.
If you don't have the patience to read these threads, you are free to not read them. But I hope you will bear with them, because I do believe that we can all work together to make FT an even better place than it already is. ^

Speaking of which, do you have any ideas how we can improve collaboration between the TB and mods? Any suggestions to make the TB more efficient!?

PS, FYI, telling me to, in effect, shut up without addressing the actual issues only motivates me because it tells me that I may be on to something.

Incredulous as it may seem, members do PM mods for reasons unrelated to moderation. It's not just my opinion that TB needs to move on from these silly strung out convos, but rank and file members who are beginning to wonder what's "really going on" here, whether it's just friendly differences of opinion or old vendettas. Perhaps it's time to rethink the tactic of banging on and on about matters that really aren't within the board's purview. Yeah, I know it rankles some to read that but there are limits to others' patience. For your own sake and those you claim to represent please consider whether the continued hostility is good for the membership and the future of TB itself.

I'm sorry, but if members feel this way, they can PM *me* or other members of the TB. I guarantee I'll listen and even guarantee a reply.

PMing you about the TB is about as useful as others PMing me about the weather or US politics. You're not on the TB.

And we are trying to make things better around here (and better doesn't mean that things change drastically -- there's always room for improvement). Open, productive dialogues about *anything* can only make things better.

Then honestly should you be standing as a member of TB? Mods are required to check FT daily (with some exception), how about the same self imposed requirement on TB members?

I can't speak of moderation, which has different responsibilities than TB.

But I can speak of TB. There is no requirement to check in daily. Most of us do, or at least a few times a week, because we feel a duty to our roles as TB members and to FTers, whom we serve. There are also times when we're unavailable, and as you know having been a TB member, there's a mechanism in the private TB for that.

I have been one of the most active TB members in both the public & private forum, and will continue to be one. To imply that I shouldn't be standing as a TB member because occasionally real-life/job intervenes is both insulting and absurd IMO.

Now - if you wanted to say that to the 2 TB members last term who only showed up for voting, I might agree with you. ;)

I think the 2 week window for voting is fine, both for the reasons I stated and which bhatnasx did as well in his 3 points.

Cheers.

I'm expressing my view as a regular member.

I get that. But you said "others", suggesting you were speaking for someone else as well. Have I read that wrong?

A bit OT, I cannot see why the mods are so outspoken against de-marginalizing TB. Maybe there is a history in the past that I am not aware of, but from what I have seen Koko is being quite open and diplomatic.

Is there any way to de-marginalize TB without encroaching on the moderators territory? At least that would be a starting point.

"Not happening. End of." -- DCI Gene Hunt

For the sake of TB's credibility, it's time to move on.

I've found that often, telling someone they can't do something, or something will not happen means that they will find a way to make it happen.

I get that. But you said "others", suggesting you were speaking for someone else as well. Have I read that wrong?

A bit OT, I cannot see why the mods are so outspoken against de-marginalizing TB. Maybe there is a history in the past that I am not aware of, but from what I have seen Koko is being quite open and diplomatic.

Is there any way to de-marginalize TB without encroaching on the moderators territory? At least that would be a starting point.

Anything that doesn't preserve the status quo threatens some people. It's doubtful that will change. It's doubtful it will change me doing my best to help improve the FT experience for everyone.

What I don't have the patience for is pretense. Power grabs dressed up as collaboration (as if that notion is some intrinsic good) are still bad faith power grabs at the end of the day. No sale.

Is there any way to de-marginalize TB...That's the essential, unqualified question, isn't it? And isn't it interesting that those who slime the volunteer mod corps with all sorts of ill-intent and misdeed can't see irony in their own intentions? Seems to me TB has dealt themselves the moral high hand at the expense of their own credibility.

Anything that doesn't preserve the status quo threatens some people. It's doubtful that will change. It's doubtful it will change me doing my best to help improve the FT experience for everyone.

Although I would like to see change (which is how I voted in the last electrion) , I understand both sides. I really do. However, surely there can be changes made that do not rile the various moderators (not all!) that are very outspoken against certain TB members and their proposals.

As I mentioned earlier, open up the private TB forum as a way to de-marginalize TB (at least we know what our elected leaders are thinking). This has no effect on moderation and would only draw more interest to TB and its activities.

Although I would like to see change (which is how I voted in the last electrion) , I understand both sides. I really do. However, surely there can be changes made that do not rile the various moderators (not all!) that are very outspoken against certain TB members and their proposals.

As I mentioned earlier, open up the private TB forum as a way to de-marginalize TB (at least we know what our elected leaders are thinking). This has no effect on moderation and would only draw more interest to TB and its activities.
This would be a start, as would the compromise of keeping the old private TB forum limited to just TB for read-only access, and opening a new "private" TB forum where all FT members have read-only access.

Although I would like to see change (which is how I voted in the last electrion) , I understand both sides. I really do. However, surely there can be changes made that do not rile the various moderators (not all!) that are very outspoken against certain TB members and their proposals.

I don't understand why the TB should tiptoe around those particular moderators to avoid offending them. After all, they are members first and foremost and we represent them, too. They can feel free to comment here and PM me as they wish, but I'm not going to change how I post or the suggestions I make *just because* they are moderators.

I'll give their viewpoints the exact same weight as I'd give the viewpoints of any other member of FT. @:-)

What I don't have the patience for is pretense. Power grabs dressed up as collaboration (as if that notion is some intrinsic good) are still bad faith power grabs at the end of the day. No sale.

Ok, but surely there are other channels that don't involve a power grab (not that I agree on that is what is happening). Stonewalling everything might not be the best idea.

That's the essential, unqualified question, isn't it?

The answer may very well be "no". As it stands, I see no need to have a TB if it is just to suggest new fora to the CD. As a poster, I would like to have some sort of body that functions on behalf of the posters to improve FT.

I believe Koko started this thread to suggest ideas on how to de-marginalize TB. Maybe his first ideas won't work, but surely something can come up with something that won't upset a few outspoken moderators. This does not have to be a power grab!

This would be a start, as would the compromise of keeping the old private TB forum limited to just TB for read-only access, and opening a new "private" TB forum where all FT members have read-only access.I see. Openness for thee but not for me? Thanks for exposing the very acme and pitch of hypocrisy of the original proposal.

I don't understand why the TB should tiptoe around those particular moderators to avoid offending them. After all, they are members first and foremost and we represent them, too. They can feel free to comment here and PM me as they wish, but I'm not going to change how I post or the suggestions I make *just because* they are moderators.

I'll give their viewpoints the exact same weight as I'd give the viewpoints of any other member of FT. @:-)

Sorry, I should have not made it about certain moderators. It was more a few FT members that happen to be moderators seem to be against the nature of de-marginalizing TB. When it comes to a perceived power struggle, it is hard for me to differentiate if a poster is speaking in their official role or not.

I see. Openness for thee but not for me? Thanks for exposing the very acme and pitch of hypocrisy of the original proposal.

Huh? What isn't open about allowing all users read-only access to the private TB discussion forum? I'd like to simply open the current TB private forum to read-only access for all posters, but if there's too many reasons not to (personal sniping or insults, etc.), then I'd settle for a new TB private discussion forum, where all posters have read-only access. I'd prefer to have the moderator forum open as well. However, if we're focusing on TB, then let's focus on TB.

Another alternative to this would be to simply close the private TB forum and require all discussions to take place on this forum, where users can post. However, that could get rather difficult to tell if motions had been made and/or seconded, etc.

I see. Openness for thee but not for me? Thanks for exposing the very acme and pitch of hypocrisy of the original proposal.

Would you want the private moderator forum opened? Openness for everyone? I am sure that could be proposed as well...if you are in favor of everyone being open.

If you are not in favor of opening up either fora, ok. I think it is a good idea in order to de-margnialize TB...and it might be one of the few things that is within the purview of TB.

I see. Openness for thee but not for me? Thanks for exposing the very acme and pitch of hypocrisy of the original proposal.

I don't get this. I've read through the entire private TB forum and it's mainly a cure for insomnia and I'd personally have no problem opening it up for all to see. I don't suppose you'd feel the same about the mod forum, or do you?

Ok, but surely there are other channels that don't involve a power grab (not that I agree on that is what is happening). Stonewalling everything might not be the best idea.



The answer may very well be "no". As it stands, I see no need to have a TB if it is just to suggest new fora to the CD. As a poster, I would like to have some sort of body that functions on behalf of the posters to improve FT.

I believe Koko started this thread to suggest ideas on how to de-marginalize TB. Maybe his first ideas won't work, but surely something can come up with something that won't upset a few outspoken moderators. This does not have to be a power grab!

From my perspective, this is not at all about a power grab. Frankly I find the notion of 'power' in terms of FT management to be a bit silly. Ultimately the only person with power on FT is our Community Director and Internet Brands. I personally have no desire to run this joint. But I do want to help make it better.

So to me it's about doing a critical self-examination of FlyerTalk and seeing if there are things that can be done to improve the FT experience.

You are absolutely correct that I am not trying to force anything down anyone's throat. To continue my string of hoary cliches, rather, I seek a collaborative white board session where we all can think outside the box about how we can make FT's management more efficient and ensure that it is representative of what the posters want.

To my mind that means, among other things:
- making the TB more efficient
- having the volunteer management arms of FT (TB and mods) work more closely together
- creating additional opportunities for formal involvement in the management of FT
- providing more openness to said management.

I'm certainly open to criticisms of these ideas, and and more than open to other ideas (I'm practically begging for them!).

So that's *my* motivation, anyway. If that makes it a 'power grab' in others' minds, I might suggest that has more to do with their perspective than my motivation.

But whatever the case, I won't be distracted. I am focused like a laser beam on thinking about ways to make FT an even better IBB experience.

But whatever the case, I won't be distracted. I am focused like a laser beam on thinking about ways to make FT an even better IBB experience.

That is why I voted for you. I do not know if there is a workable solution, but I have the feeling that you will eventually explore all options. FT is good, but a few tweaks could make it great. First up for me would be getting TB a bit more involved (other than opening a new forum).

That is why I voted for you. I do not know if there is a workable solution, but I have the feeling that you will eventually explore all options. FT is good, but a few tweaks could make it great. First up for me would be getting TB a bit more involved (other than opening a new forum).

We're trying. The first step is banning the use of the word "purview."

Power grabs dressed up as collaboration (as if that notion is some intrinsic good) are still bad faith power grabs at the end of the day. No sale.

Herein, IMHO, is the entire problem in a nutshell.

Can you believe that we are talking about "power grabs" on an internet bulletin board?

As long, however, as some moderators see what they have as being "power" there will always be problems. That is only natural -- those who have power (or think that they do -- have historically been loath to give it up.

Guess what? Mods don't have real power. At the most, they can make certain that a member posts on MilePoint instead of FlyerTalk. That, IMHO, is not truly power -- just the illusion of it.

I, as I have said repeatedly, think that everyone would be better off if moderation were handled by a few people who depended upon it for their living instead of those who are concerned about their imaginary power.

We're trying. The first step is banning the use of the word "purview."

Át least the username can be changed, but can those tattoos be removed? :D

My first suggestion is that the next Mod DO/Training session include a joint session with the TB -- a chance for the two groups to collaborate about the future of FT.

Call it whatever you like, but bringing the two groups together for some constructive dialogue seems to be a great first step in working together to make FT an even better place.

I get that. But you said "others", suggesting you were speaking for someone else as well. Have I read that wrong?

A bit OT, I cannot see why the mods are so outspoken against de-marginalizing TB. Maybe there is a history in the past that I am not aware of, but from what I have seen Koko is being quite open and diplomatic.

Is there any way to de-marginalize TB without encroaching on the moderators territory? At least that would be a starting point.
I think there are many people who think it would be great to demarginalise TB. But you've identified the problem - for some on here, and the only thing some people seem willing to discuss, is how TB should take more control of moderation. Given how many times TB (and not just the current one) has been told this is not going to happen, to have some continually harken on about it does get sad and frustrating.

So until some on TB can get beyond demarginlising TB=controlling moderation, then I don't see much of a change in approach. If some on/around TB are unable to change, why are you expecting anyone else to? ;)

I've already posted up thread, so I won't repeat myself too much, how TB can set about showing that it is a body able to represent the members and make timely decisions which improve FT. That would be a much better way of moving forward, rather than this tired old talk about how things would only be great if TB takes over the mods. And the longer these discussions go on about TB taking over the mods - i.e. wastes its time on fantasy - the more it marginalises itself, as it looks like a group which is fixated on something we have been told repeatedly will not happen.

With apologies to ZenFlyer (if it helps, this stuff was 'only' 4 years ago! :D)... but I really cannot let this assertion go unchallenged. You had a guaranteed seconder in me. All you had to do was make the motion, and it would have gone to a vote. But as we know from the history of motions made, for some reason, you chose not to and so you chose not to admit publicly what you had been saying on the private forum about a member behind their back.

And that, I think, is that. With a tip of the hat to Zenflyer, I think it's fair to say that the private forums of both mods and TB have not always been what they should. They are used by humans afterall, and we are all human. Let's concentrate on how we can make the thing work better in the future, rather than pick over old scrawny bones.

This post is funny.

"Let me get my punches in and then let's move on."

We're trying. The first step is banning the use of the word "purview."

^^^

This post is funny.

"Let me get my punches in and then let's move on."

That is exactly how I read that post! :D

Huh? What isn't open about allowing all users read-only access to the private TB discussion forum?
You suggested that past threads *not* be read-only. Qualified openness for TB is not openness.

Would you want the private moderator forum opened? Openness for everyone? No, in the case of the mod forum. I don't have an opinion on whether TB should open their forum to the general membership.

I don't get this. I've read through the entire private TB forum and it's mainly a cure for insomnia and I'd personally have no problem opening it up for all to see. I don't suppose you'd feel the same about the mod forum, or do you?Actually, I think a lot of the mod forum content is pretty snooze-inducing. However, a number of topics, as pro forma as they are, are really none of anyone's business outside of IB, the CD and volunteer mod corp. It's especially not fair to subject members who've already been disciplined to public scrutiny and possible humiliation after the fact. (This is especially so when it comes to ongoing member-on-member vendettas.) It's simply not right to open up these records knowing full well they could be re-purposed to carry out further character assaults. Opening up the mod forum is just a bad idea for other reasons, too. As it ain't happening, it's time to drop the subject and move on.

It's especially not fair to subject members who've already been disciplined to public scrutiny and possible humiliation after the fact.

When a member is disciplined it is publicly announced. For 7 days, 30 days, or permanently there is an announcement that he is suspended on every post he has ever made.

The "humiliation" is there (at least for the member). The secrecy only protects a moderator who has given a suspension for invalid or questionable reasons.

(A moderator who gives a warranted suspension has absolutely no reason to be embarrassed.)

My first suggestion is that the next Mod DO/Training session include a joint session with the TB -- a chance for the two groups to collaborate about the future of FT.

Call it whatever you like, but bringing the two groups together for some constructive dialogue seems to be a great first step in working together to make FT an even better place.

NOW we're getting somewhere. That's a brilliant suggestion! ^

And I'll even get the first round at the bar!

{Non core subject section snipped by the moderator}

My first suggestion is that the next Mod DO/Training session include a joint session with the TB -- a chance for the two groups to collaborate about the future of FT.

Call it whatever you like, but bringing the two groups together for some constructive dialogue seems to be a great first step in working together to make FT an even better place.I'm all for a joint session! ^ But instead of TB inviting themselves to a ModDo, how 'bout the TB set up their own meeting and invite the mods?

I think there are many people who think it would be great to demarginalise TB. But you've identified the problem - for some on here, and the only thing some people seem willing to discuss, is how TB should take more control of moderation. Given how many times TB (and not just the current one) has been told this is not going to happen, to have some continually harken on about it does get sad and frustrating.

So until some on TB can get beyond demarginlising TB=controlling moderation, then I don't see much of a change in approach. If some on/around TB are unable to change, why are you expecting anyone else to? ;)


The history of FT seems to be fixated around how Randy ran the site. Is he still here? Do we still need to operate under his rules/guidelines? They worked well for awhile, but that does not mean they were perfect. I would love to see TB (voted by posters) try to tweak how the old establishment worked to make it better. One reason I am for change is that most of the TB/moderators come from those days. SanDiego1K is in charge, that is clear. I would like to see TB put together suggestions/proposals to her (let's face it, that is all they can do) and see her response. If she thinks things are working, so be it and status quo exists. Without a push for change, nothing will. Some clearly feel a change would benefit FT.

As for TB/mod relations, I am all for doing anything to de-marginalize TB without affecting mods.

When a member is disciplined it is publicly announced. For 7 days, 30 days, or permanently there is an announcement that he is suspended on every post he has ever made.

The "humiliation" is there (at least for the member). The secrecy only protects a moderator who has given a suspension for invalid or questionable reasons.

(A moderator who gives a warranted suspension has absolutely no reason to be embarrassed.)
That's not correct. Warnings issued to members are are never shown publicly. So not all discipline is visible. And discipline doesn't alway equal suspensions - in fact, by the time you get issued a suspension, you should already have gone through at least one other stage of moderator intervention.

There will be other methods of discipline which is not publicly visible - this might include requiring members to edit posts or other tools open to moderators to manage problems which may occur.

Some of those tools we may not want to discuss openly as we would then lose their efficacy. Some of the problems we deal with are thorny and difficult enough without losing some of the tools in our arsenal :(

Gotta hand it to you, Dov. Nobody but nobody poisons the well better than you do. ;)


I'm all for a joint session! ^ But instead of TB inviting themselves to a ModDo, how 'bout the TB set up their own meeting and invite the mods?

What's the difference? Doesn't IB sponsor the ModDo?

The history of FT seems to be fixated around how Randy ran the site. Is he still here? Do we still need to operate under his rules/guidelines? They worked well for awhile, but that does not mean they were perfect. I would love to see TB (voted by posters) try to tweak how the old establishment worked to make it better. One reason I am for change is that most of the TB/moderators come from those days. SanDiego1K is in charge, that is clear. I would like to see TB put together suggestions/proposals to her (let's face it, that is all they can do) and see her response. If she thinks things are working, so be it and status quo exists. Without a push for change, nothing will. Some clearly feel a change would benefit FT.
No, we don't, but Carol has already reiterated that TB will not become responsible for moderation.

And been ignored by many.

So yes, we are beyond Randy's era. However, the policy remains unchanged. It's just that some don't really seem to believe Carol. I guess they don't know her as well as I do :eek:

Actually, I think a lot of the mod forum content is pretty snooze-inducing. However, a number of topics, as pro forma as they are, are really none of anyone's business outside of IB, the CD and volunteer mod corp. It's especially not fair to subject members who've already been disciplined to public scrutiny and possible humiliation after the fact. (This is especially so when it comes to ongoing member-on-member vendettas.) It's simply not right to open up these records knowing full well they could be re-purposed to carry out further character assaults. Opening up the mod forum is just a bad idea for other reasons, too. As it ain't happening, it's time to drop the subject and move on.

Please, let's at least be honest about why discipline is done in secret: you are not protecting members from possible humiliation because 'suspended' appears under their handle.

You keep discipline on the down-low so that it does not create a lot of acrimony or navel-gazing or questions about disciplinary actions.

And that may be a good reason to do it that way. There may be others. Certainly worth figuring out if it is indeed a best practice or not.

When a member is disciplined it is publicly announced. For 7 days, 30 days, or permanently there is an announcement that he is suspended on every post he has ever made.

The "humiliation" is there (at least for the member).Which is plenty.

The secrecy only protects a moderator who has given a suspension for invalid or questionable reasons.

(A moderator who gives a warranted suspension has absolutely no reason to be embarrassed.)

What utter tosh. Warranted suspensions by definition confer culpability on the part of the member. The airing of past mistakes doesn't serve that member, it only serves as a kind of perverse entertainment for those fixated on their own narcissistic supply.

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 due to the many twist and turns it has taken away from Koko's original posting. I encourage Koko to start a new thread on the marginalization subject if he so desires. I'd rather not redact any further posts in this one, so I'll just retire it.


Link: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkboard-topics/1293763-my-thoughts-2012-talkboard.html






http://www.janeausten.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/graphics/eggnog.jpg