TalkBoard Elections/05 - Question 3: Your Views on Moderation for FlyerTalk

View Full Version : Question 3: Your Views on Moderation for FlyerTalk

Randy Petersen

Oct 7, 05, 7:07 pm

John C

Oct 7, 05, 7:17 pm

I believe the moderators on FT do an outstanding job – far better than is normally found on Internet boards. All of us can site individual examples of where we might have done things differently, but those situations are few and far between. Equally importantly, the moderators are generally open to constructive criticism. I have seen discussions on these boards about what is and is not a proper use of moderation and I have seen moderators change their decisions based on the feedback of the community. In my mind the porridge is neither too hot, nor too cold, but is just about right as is; this is a definite example of that which is not broken should not be fixed.

Buzzard533

Oct 7, 05, 7:22 pm

I don’t think Randy’s quote 'anything goes/low moderation' necessarily applies to the forums that I visit. I believe in the ‘low moderation” approach and due to the quality members on the forums I have visited, I have not seen the ‘anything goes’ misused. I understand that is not the case across all of FT, though.

That being said, I believe that moderators need to be empowered to control their forums. Each forum is going to have bit different tone and approach. The moderator(s) controlling those forums know best.

~Matthew~

Oct 7, 05, 7:23 pm

I will agree with John C that the current moderators are outstanding. I feel that with a forum of this size and with it's vast importance and presence on the Internet, having proper moderation is essential. From my personal viewpoint, I feel that a slight ramping up of moderation is in order on certain topics, to help combat the insensitivity some posters tend to exhibit when new members post and do not follow the "normal" guidelines.

NOLAnwGOLD

Oct 7, 05, 7:46 pm

For me, moderation is essential to forums and listservs. I'm very impressed with the current FT moderators in their committment and time spent with their forums. I'm also impressed as members self-moderate threads calling out people have possibily stepped out of line or correct mistakes.

If I were a moderator, I'd have a lay-low approach, but quick to step in during something illegal, rude or out-of-line. Also, given the size of FT, some messages needs to be redirected to other forums so that it is more effective and appropriate for all.

Cholula

Oct 7, 05, 8:26 pm

I'm generally of the opinion that forum moderators serve FlyerTalk best when they are active members first and moderators second.
To explain this a bit further, I'm a firm believer that FT forum moderators should be active posters in the forums they moderate. Not necessarily an expert in these forums but an active member who is familiar with both the forum issues and the forum regulars.
There are times where a moderator has to step in to close or merge a thread, delete a comment or otherwise keep order in the forum. Hopefully these times will be few and far between.
The enjoyable part about being a moderator is helping posters with answers to their questions, providing directions or advice to other threads/forums of interest and generally being available for whatever issues or situations arise in the course of daily interaction.

civicmon

Oct 7, 05, 9:02 pm

I think the moderating, in general, is fine. I've had a few run-ins with some and won't expect their votes but I can't please everyone...

I like the 'self-moderating/low moderating' aspect. I think that overruley moderators help destroy the flow and 'neighborhood feeling' of a forum. Spam, unruly trolls, misplaced posts etc just make sense to move, but say that something is 'slightly offtopic and is not allowed' is somewhat ridiclous.

Some moderators have let their power get to their head however, and some users see moderators are demigods and look almost solely to them for assistance, when in most cases, they are users first. Other times, I often have to scroll to the bottom of the screen to see who the mods are since they never participate in the forum they're moderating.

You can look at the Air Canada forum for example. That forum tends to be 'all things Canadian' which is fine by my book, that's how the most frequent participants want it to be. Should the NW or DL forum be all things DTW or ATL? Maybe, maybe not, but the point is, it helps create a real sense of community, brought together by a common interest or location.

mbstone

Oct 7, 05, 10:25 pm

Obviously personal attacks, spam, threads that belong in another topic, all are examples of situations where moderation is appropriate if not required.

Moderation ought to be like Muzak, if you can hear it it's too loud.

bhatnasx

Oct 7, 05, 10:38 pm

This is an interesting question - and as a moderator on FlyerTalk, I feel it is important to express my point of view on this.

My views on moderation are reflected best in my posts. If you have the time & inclination, I encourage you to check out my posts in the Mileage Run forum as well as the Welcome to the Mileage Run Forum (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=454485) thread that I helped write for the Mileage Run forum.

I believe and try to practice the following:

1) Moderators should always be there as a resource & guide for the general membership of FlyerTalk.

2) Moderators have a responsibility to play fair and not have favorites or "enemies" in the forums.

3) Moderators should be consistent & treat all posters, including fellow moderators the same.

4) Moderators should treat members with respect and take action against those who are not treating other members with respect. This is an online community with about 80K members - many people are often "Keyboard Confident" and sometimes discussions get personal - there is no place for personal arguments on FlyerTalk as it detracts from the experience that the other 79,998 posters.

5) Moderation should be done in a manner that it does not stifle intelligent conversation. If someone disagrees with what someone else says or feels - that's fine - as long as its civilized & respectful, feel free to continue discussion on the matter.

6) Moderators should not be viewed as "the Thread Police" - but moreso as the "the Thread Guides" - if we close a thread or delete posts, I believe it is important for us to inform the members why we are doing it. It is important to also do this diplomatically and look at it as an opportunity to help a member know more about what is expected out of active posters on FlyerTalk.

Now, as to answering the question of what type of moderation works best for FlyerTalk, I believe that as we are a community that is about 80,000 members strong, no single one way will work. The moderation must be flexible & relate to the situation. There are certain cases when a moderator should just PM a member privately and ask that they edit their post for XYZ reason. There are cases, such as spammers, where moderators should take immediate action & close & delete spam threads and ban or suspend the user immediately. There are also cases where if a thread gets out of control, a moderator needs to be willing to step in and take immediate action for the sanctity of the subject matter or the direction a thread is heading. There is no one answer to this question.

nsx

Oct 7, 05, 11:14 pm

For over five years the Southwest forum had no official moderator. As I posted in the Q1 thread, I only became moderator of the Southwest forum in order to maintain the FAQ there.

Since then I have occasionally edited posts and deleted, merged, or moved threads, but such actions have averaged far less than one per day and most of them are organizational in nature, rather than editorial. I take pride in the fact that I have never had to impose a timeout. Over the years (including five years with no official authority as moderator) I have always been successful in establishing sufficient goodwill so that problem posters either left on speaking terms or became assets to the forum.

I firmly believe that everyone on FT can be an asset to at least one forum. Moderators and members need to respect both the intelligence and the feeling behind the words written here. In my opinion, moderators should insist that each of us grant at least as much leeway to others as we would like for ourselves. I give every poster the benefit of the doubt, putting me in the loose moderation camp. I favor contributors over readers in borderline cases, for the obvious reason that the forum needs contributions to survive.

I hope that the members can be as relaxed as I am about what they read on FT. If they take offense easily, they may need to find a more strict forum. Reading the Southwest forum is similar to flying Southwest in this respect. If you keep your expectations reasonable and are willing to go with the flow, you will have a happy trip. If not, then Southwest is not your airline, and the Southwest forum is not for you either.

One other point. I am not saying that the relaxed style is best for every forum and every moderator. If the natural style of the forum is tight-laced, or if that is the moderator's natural style, tight moderation will probably work best. But in my experience, which goes all the way back to the Wild West days of Usenet, a calm de-escalating response can bring most people on board. A timeout often brings long-lasting resentment that will surface later.

missydarlin

Oct 8, 05, 1:07 am

I'm in the "moderation is really a member benefit" camp. I do believe that different forums have different personalities, and that says quite a bit about the community spirit that pervades FT.. and should be respected. But there comes a point, especially in the larger forums, or during more tumultous periods of change, (like when your elite benefits get "enhanced") ..where its beneficial to have some "firemen" (and we all know how I feel about firemen ;) )around to either put out the fire if needed, or at least keep it in a controlled state of burn.

VPescado

Oct 8, 05, 3:06 am

Obviously some level of moderation is required for a site as large as FT - if only to prevent the board from being overrun by SPAM and trolls. That said, I think whenever possible moderators should be moderate in their moderation. :)

Sorry, I couldn't resist that last sentence, but I am serious:

If a diplomatically worded PM will get the job done, that should be the approach . . . or perhaps a gentle reminder in the thread can do the trick. Sometimes it will be necessary to make a small (or even large) edit to a post. Sadly, in some cases, time-outs and banishment will be required. The important thing is to use the smallest amount of moderation necessary to keep things running smoothly and in harmony with the terms of service.

I do think the existing framework for moderation is fundementally sound, and the folks that volunteer for the position overwhelmingly do a great job. However, there is, on occasion, friction between moderators and general members. If you examine my platform, (http://www.flyertalk.com/talkthevote/index.php?candidate=138) you will see that I have given quite a bit of thought to this matter, and have some fresh ideas that should improve things. It is my belief that transparency and consistancy will go a long way to prevent many of these (thankfully rare) situations.

stimpy

Oct 8, 05, 3:21 am

Radioman

Oct 8, 05, 5:16 am

Hello to the voting public and my fellow candidates,

I always feel that forums should be allowed to run themselves but, moderators should always be around just in case things get out of hand.

There are forums on the internet which are not as respectable as FlyerTalk and we don’t have the problem of “This is my forum, do as I say or else…”. We have all seen this type of person and it’s nice to see that we don’t have this issue with FlyerTalk.

I think that the following definition sums up the job of a moderator:

On Internet websites which invite users to post comments, a Moderation System is the method the webmaster chooses to sort contributions which are irrelevant, obscene, illegal or insulting from contributions which are useful or informative.

http://encyclopedia.laborlawtalk.com/moderation (visit the link for more info)

Moderators are an essential working part of any board.

Regards
RadioMan

Radioman

Oct 8, 05, 5:24 am

To me the single biggest problem with using an Internet board is that we cannot see each others faces. 90% of face-to-face communication comes from somewhere other than your voice. We lose a lot when we try to communicate here. We all should take that into account, difficult as it may be, when we post.

So as a moderator, I think you should review posts with that in mind. Did the poster really mean what he/she said? Sometimes they just need a nudge. Rarely do they need more unless the poster is simply dysfunctional on an internet board.

That said, I'm mostly in favor of letting most every post stay untouched. If you said it, stand by it.

Hi Stimpy,

I will agree with you regarding this issue. One of the biggest problems these days is that what someone says in an email or a posting might not come across in the right way.

The written word is a danger at times and a lot of conflict has been caused in forums by the wording of a posting.

People should ask themselves how many times have they started to reply to a posting and done some of the following:

1. Continually changed and rewritten the posting.
2. Made the posting. Posted it, reread it and decided to change it.
3. Made a posting and what you thought was a harmless comment turned into a nightmare.

I don’t think that anyone reading would say that they have not done any of the 3 things above.

Regards
RadioMan

~Matthew~

Oct 8, 05, 6:57 am

Moderation ought to be like Muzak, if you can hear it it's too loud.

That's an excellent way of putting it and I agree completely!

socrates

Oct 8, 05, 8:17 am

This question was submitted by member Randy Petersen (Because I am a general member/voter as well):

"It would seem that the sheer size and traffic of FlyerTalk would require Moderation. Are you of the 'anything goes/low moderation' POV, self moderation works best for FlyerTalk POV, moderation is really a member benefit POV or are you somewhere else on this issue? I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves, just the topic and what's right for FlyerTalk."
Randy I feel it depends on the forum. I my opinion FT is a town with many different neighborhoods and should be moderated accordingly. Many forums did not have a moderator until this past year and it worked very well but there were a few times each year when a moderator would/could have been of assistance but then there are other threads where moderators are needed more often, it really needs to be a case by case (or forum by forum) basis

socrates

Oct 8, 05, 8:17 am

doc

Oct 8, 05, 10:19 am

Thanks very much for the pertinent question. While I believe that my views on moderation are fairly well known to most, I'll summarize here for those who may not be entirely familiar with them.

While I understand that the TB does not make moderator policy, I am now, as I've always have been, an extremely firm supporter of our volunteer moderator members, and nearly all collectively, do a very fine job, IMHO.

Yet I've discussed this issue with Randy, as you may know, and believe that the few times where "issues" have arisen, that clearer, more detailed guidelines would surely help defuse, if not entirely eliminate, these problems. I've asked if we might please possibly get some additional clarification as to what the current moderator guidelines precisely are, or perhaps, when such clarification may be forthcoming. Among the posts on this topic are:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=278908

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=333437

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=346369

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620&page=1

I've asked before if we can ever hope to truly see a genuine sense of consistency, and real objectivity, without a greater degree of transparency and a somewhat more detailed outline of current moderator guidelines?

I've noted that moderators should likely find their work significantly easier following more clear guidelines, and FT'ers will also find it easier to avoid any misposting that warrants discipline, if they're more visible for everyone to see?

As I've said, while ignorance is no excuse, whatever the current "rules" are, one cannot properly abide by them unless they know what they are, correct?

As I'd noted over a year ago then, both via emails with Randy and by this post again noted below, in any case, as a start, I thought all Moderators should, IMHO:

---

Moderator Proper Proceedures (DO's)

Do, firstly and foremost, please remember to treat all members equally and with the utmost courtesy and respect. As moderators you are members first, and like any member(s), you are what you post.

Do always remember that you are moderators and not censors.

Do make a good faith attempts to first contact and clearly request posters (via PMs, email, or posts) remove any inflammatory material from their existing, as well as any any future posts.

Do remove, replacing with asterisks, any and all material that clearly violates the current FT TOS. Use HTML comment tags to remove the text from view. Additionally, place a message in the post to properly explain your actions and
and send a PM to the poster ASAP.

Do simply delete a thread if the initial post is deemed to be a flagrant violation of the TOS. Contact the poster ASAP.

Do issue, whenever necessary, a clear, concise, and unmistakeable warning to members, and be certain to document it as proof.

Do correct errors in links or HTML as necessary (no PMs are necessary)

Do close a thread if its participants continue to ignore repeated moderator
warnings, yet always state the reason why, prior to closing such a thread.

Do replace a post bearing any copyrighted article in its' entirety with a link to that article (if obtainable). Alternatively, eliminate all but the opening paragragh, or whichever is deemed to be the most important paragrah or two.

Do move a thread that "obviously" belongs in another forum, to the other
manifestly more appropriate forum. Yet, if there is any doubt, confer with moderators of both (original and destination) FT forums, or simply permit it to remain, particularly if there are already useful follow up posts, and/or many page views that suggest it will perhaps do just as well where it is. If in doubt, leave it.

Do use HTML comment tags to omit text rather than simply deleting it, e.g.


Do leave a post in its originally posted place unless it is not absolutely certain to be significantly better posted elsewhere.

Do be consistent as is humanly possible.

Do be sure that there is no room for anyone to ever doubt your integrity based upon your action(s) as a mderator.

Do remember that you too are subject to the rules, and always, without exception, abide by the FT TOS (terms of service).

Do indicate that you are posting as a member, and not a moderator, in such cases as appropriate, and vice versa.

Do always respond to a posters email or PM query and be sure to provide an adequate explanation to members.

Do always respect FT'ers privacy.

Do recognize that we are all imperfect, yet when you have made an error, please be both quick and complete in seeking to correct it.

Do understand and always remember that the use of supposed irony and satire in veiled efforts to demean another FTer is unacceptable.

Do only what is necessary to put out a flame and to maintain an orderly FT!

---

Moderator (DON'TS)

Do not close a thread unless it is absolutely necessary.

Do not close a thread because the topic has simply "run its course."

Do not close a thread simply because it has gotten "off the subject",
rather, suggest that a new topic be created to hold the new subject and ask
that the current thread return to its original topic. Close the thread only if it
is hopelessly off-topic.

Do not close a thread simply because it is a duplicate, or near duplicate
topic. Rather post a message referring to the previously existing topic and ask
FT'ers to post to the earlier thread instead. Closing duplicate threads is acceptable only during times of fast breaking news.

Do not ever elect to simply lock a thread without clearly stating a good reason why you did it.

Do not remove a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not move a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not do anything that will even give the appearance of showing favoritism for any member(s). Nor do anything to even give the appearance of showing disdain for any memer.

Do not under any circumstances use your empowered position to further any personal or group agenda(s). Do not forget that it is FT and its' agenda that matters.

Do not forget that you too are subject to the FT TOS and serve at the pleasure of management.

Do not post as a moderator, but rather indicate that you are posting as a regular member as noted above, in any such cases that might warrant it.

Do not fail to respond to a posters emailed or PMed questions.

Do not post personal correspondence of FT'ers, such as emails or PM's, nor the content therein, without the explicit consent of that FTer.

Do not, as any member would not, belittle any member, nor make any post that might be deemed as disruptive. Take care to not appear to be flippant.

Do not compound ones mistakes by further commenting on a hot/inflammatory topic, and possibly making matters worse. It's far better to not post further at all, if uncertain. Rather you should confer with other moderators and/or the FT management as necessary.

---

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620&page=1

Again, while these are clearly not perfect, perhaps they can serve as a start?

And notably, while I've not seen much in the way of any real action on these proposed new guidelines, there have been 2 Mod Do's thusfar, and I sincerely hope that significant progress in adopting something like these, in some form, has been made. Since I am not a mod myself, I was not at either Mod Do.

Again, I continue to be strongly in favor of our superb moderator team, and sincerely feel that nearly each and every FT moderator does an absolutely excellent job. And I naturally feel just as strongly that more detailed guidelines will surely benefit all members including our moderators, who are members first afterall, as we know. It's a win-win, slam dunk situation!

Thanks :)

-Mark

socrates

Oct 8, 05, 3:08 pm

Again, while these are clearly not perfect, perhaps they can serve as a start?

Mark,

I'm all for guidelines (I would have thought Randy would have implimented some if there aren't any) but moderators must realize that they are only that...guidelines not absolute rules, as I don't see them fitting every situation completely

Markie

Oct 8, 05, 3:12 pm

Personally I like Moderation with a gentle hand.

My views are best seen at the Hyatt board where I think we have managed to maintain a helpful and yet civil board, full of useful information, without lots of Moderation.

As I have said in my manifesto, I would like Moderators to be more active in welcoming new members as I have come across people too nervous to post.

Whilst the membership is self-selecting, Moderation (gentle, caring Moderation) is a plus.

VPescado

Oct 8, 05, 10:58 pm

As I have said in my manifesto, I would like Moderators to be more active in welcoming new members as I have come across people too nervous to post.

I think this is a great idea. I think a lot of people are intimidated by moderators as they see them as cops.

They should be viewed more like hosts at a party: They welcome new people, show them where they can hang their coats and offer them some refreshments. Obviously they will need to on occasion request that guests refrain from playing their tuba, but that is not what they should be known for.

fredman

Oct 8, 05, 11:33 pm

Moderating: as long as it (a posting) stays relatively close to the topic, doesn't go into religious or political beliefs, doesn't get personal in a 'bad' way, then folks have little to worry about.

Shareholder

Oct 9, 05, 8:31 am

I see moderation as a necessary evil. When a Community grows as this one has, then some form of policing is necessary because we cannot all be "good" all the time. In my six years posting on FT, I have received a few PMs from moderators. In most cases, I thoroughly disagreed with their rationale for censuring me. In a couple, I could see their points.

At the same time, the forum I post in most, the Air Canada Aeroplan forum, has no moderation. There is a consensus among participants, and the management of FT, that this can be the case as long as we police ourselves. Sometimes this gets messy, but it has generally worked. It works, primarily because we are all coming from the same place, and share certain social conventions because 95% of the regulars are Canadian or reside in Canada, and thus we know where acceptable boundaries exist within our tolerance levels. When moderators have intervened, things have gotten vicious, and we do tend to resent their presence.

On other fora, where moderators are the norm, there appears to be a wide variation of how they actually go about their tasks. This inconsistency is the most aggrevating aspect of moderation. But it is also something that is being addressed, as two moderator meetings have set out to deal with. At the same time, moderators must also recognize they have a special responsibility to the Community. One cannot underestimate the time it takes to undertake this activity, and the commitment that it represents to our Community.

Good moderation is like good policing in any community. When properly done it should be seldom if ever noticed, or needed. But when necessary, it will be there. There are three key areas I believe it necessary: To stop personal insults and general bullying; To manage traffic and ensure copyright and similar legalities are respected; and To ensure factual and correct information is posted and misleading threads addressed. I would like to see moderators consolidate more threads, but that's my personal bain: too many threads get started on subjects that already have threads on them.

Finally, I believe those who do take this position upon themselves must meet a high standard of integrity. They must not see themselves as above the rest of us, and thus unaccountable to us, the Community.

I guess my cop out on this subject can be best summed up in the words of a former Canadian prime minister: "Moderation if necessary, but not necessarily moderation." Maybe that's why the AC forum works without one [albeit Randy has assumed the position "on paper"].

kokonutz

Oct 9, 05, 12:47 pm

Hm, my understanding is that the TB has no real authority or influence over moderation policies. But since you ask, Randy, allow me to fire with both barrels:

Moderation sucks. It inhibits the free market of ideas, which is the sole culture in which the bacteria of wisdom and knowledge can grow and thrive. Maybe I should have said yeast, since that makes things rise. But I digress. Again.

But the internet being the internet I concede that moderation is a necessary evil. So let me focus on the second barrel: beyond my Jeffersonian commitment to free speech and an unfettered marketplace of ideas, I also hate moderation because done improperly it is intrusive, petty and annoying. Maybe it is just my natural distrust and dislike of authority, especially authority exercised under the veil of secrecy, but being moderated for calling Ted a ....... just chaffs me. A ....... is a fatherless son. So is Ted. It implies that something is missing and that a certain status can never be achieved. So does Ted.

I have heard the argument that salty language makes FT seem less impressive to the industry than when we keep things rated G. But as far as I am concerned, I personally don’t give a rat’s whisker (see how hard I am trying here) what the industry thinks. The reason industry hangs out here is because they know they will get informed, insightful and FRANK opinions from their very best customers. Glenn Tilton needs to know that we think Ted is a ......., not a “(deleted).” OUM: Power to the posters!!

If I were in charge of FT moderation then

1) The moderator forum would be open on a read-only basis to all flyertalkers. Transparency in deliberations of the judicial branch of ft is just as important as transparency in the legislative branch of flyertalk.

2) ALL moderation actions would have to be noted by the moderator in a read-only forum. Every warning sent, every word edited, every thread moved would be required to be meticulously reported that read-only forum. That way we could all see who the good mods are, who the ninny ones are and whether any patterns and/or abuses are taking place among the moderator corps. This would also give posters the ability to see which posters are bad apples. Again, transparency. Shine a little sun on moderator actions and the posters they are moderating.

Yeah, I DO acknowledge that mods are volunteers and are already giving of their time and this added burden is asking a lot. And that is the point. If mods had to fill out paperwork when they take moderator action, they would think twice and maybe even thrice before acting on a post. Again, allowing the maximum amount of a free market of ideas AND transparency as possible.

VPescado

Oct 9, 05, 1:07 pm

The moderator forum would be open on a read-only basis to all flyertalkers. Transparency in deliberations of the judicial branch of ft is just as important as transparency in the legislative branch of flyertalk.

I had considered this one myself (you may recall that transparency - including that of moderation is one of the planks in my platform) , but I realized it has two problems:

a) A lot of moderation is best done behind the scenes. A nicely worded PM to a user might get something corrected without leading to hard feelings. If this were discussed on a (publically readable) moderator forum, it would necessarily cause the original infraction to become more visible, and would more likely result in hard feelings all around.

b) Debate among the moderators will be deminished as the moderator's forum would no longer be a "safe" place to post unpopular views (e.g. I have a great idea for dealing with member X's actions, but if I post it, people will accuse me of being anti-X). This actually will reduce the marketplace of ideas with respect to moderation. Consider that the US supreme court publishes opinions, including dissents which carefully reason why the justices involved came to the conclusion they did. However, they do not publish their working papers that led to the final product.

I think my idea of an ombudsman (who would have access to these discussions) would be a far more effective (and less problematic) way of dealing with the issue of consistency.

[Edited for clarification in point a.]

CameraGuy

Oct 10, 05, 9:05 am

I am VERY happy with the current group of moderators and thank them for their time and effort.

If asked for feedback from the Board Management, I would make two suggestions:

1: A PM of e-mail should be sent to any members whose post is edited or deleted.
2: FT Management needs to get tougher with the moderator bashers. The current practice of 4th and 5th 30 day suspensions is not working. Permanent suspensions for any member who displays consistent disdain for the moderator corps is necessary.

peteropny

Oct 10, 05, 9:41 pm

As a moderator (in two of the less controversial forums), perhaps my views here are somewhat biased. Moderation is necessary for a site as large as FT, to help with proper management of the information as well as to prevent "flame wars" between members. However, poster intent should also be considered and "light moderation" is ideal. As FT grows, however, the need for more moderation will also continue to grow.

kokonutz

Oct 11, 05, 8:11 am

I had considered this one myself (you may recall that transparency - including that of moderation is one of the planks in my platform) , but I realized it has two problems:

a) A lot of moderation is best done behind the scenes. A nicely worded PM to a user might get something corrected without leading to hard feelings. If this were discussed on a (publicly readable) moderator forum, it would necessarily cause the original infraction to become more visible, and would more likely result in hard feelings all around.

I am hesitant to get into this too much further because, as noted, managing moderators and moderation policy is not in the TB job description. But I will anyway because, let's face it, it is FAR more interesting than the franchise bill I SHOULD be reading this morning.

Obviously we disagree. I think it is important, no, CRITICAL that all posters be able to see and know when ANY moderation action is taken, including a nicely worded PM being sent, and that it be followed up on by the mod. If a moderation action report hypothetically showed:

- 10/1/05 PM sent asking kokonutz to remove the word "......." from [linked post]
- 10/2/05 kokonutz edited his post

That would tell you something about both the moderator AND the poster, as opposed to what this tells you about each:

- 10/1/05 Deleted kokonutz entire post from [linked thread] because he called Ted a "......." in that post. Informed kokonutz of this moderation by PM.
- 10/1/05 Kokonutz reposted his offensive post, so I deleted it again and warned him that one more time and he would get a time out.
- 10/1/05 Rec'd PM from kokonutz telling me that my moderation style "sucks" for deleting the entire post rather then just the offending word
- 10/1/05 Issued kokonutz 7-day timeout for reposting offensive post and calling me sucky.

One of the major frustrations with moderation is that there are no lines. Or, more specifically each moderator has his/her own lines. Only by full disclosure like the above can we all know where a certain moderator's lines are and just how authoritarian they are and what their moderation style is like. This is good for posters to know as we post in 'their' forum, and is a good way to judge the relative merits of both moderators AND our fellow posters.

b) Debate among the moderators will be deminished as the moderator's forum would no longer be a "safe" place to post unpopular views (e.g. I have a great idea for dealing with member X's actions, but if I post it, people will accuse me of being anti-X). This actually will reduce the marketplace of ideas with respect to moderation. Consider that the US supreme court publishes opinions, including dissents which carefully reason why the justices involved came to the conclusion they did. However, they do not publish their working papers that led to the final product.

I think my idea of an ombudsman (who would have access to these discussions) would be a far more effective (and less problematic) way of dealing with the issue of consistency.

[Edited for clarification in point a.]Again, respectfully disagree. If a poster is truly being disruptive then a moderator should have no problem posting that fact in an read-only public moderator forum. I dont WANT the FT police posting "unpopular" views in a secret star chamber. If they think that a poster warrants being disciplined, they need to be so sure about it that they are willing to say it in public.

The whole idea of a free and unfettered marketplace of ideas is that the best ideas and concepts naturally rise to the top and the bad ones are ignored or fail to gain support. And we can all judge the relative merits of someone advancing those ideas based on how their ideas do in the marketplace. Secret deliberations deny posters the opportunity to make these judgements both about moderators AND about other posters every bit as much as they deny posters the ability to judge the relative merits of their talkboard members.

In other words, if a moderator is able to make a case that koknutz is toeing the line for the specific purpose of testing a moderator, then let him make that case in public. If he can make this case effectively then he will not only have the support of the moderators but of the posters as well. If he makes a poor case then we MUST question his judgement and wisdom as well as his ability to be an effective moderator. THAT is what the open marketplace of ideas is all about.

In the Star Chamber, though, a moderator can make a poor case and then, for a variety of reasons, that bad judgement can gain support and even turn into a lynch mob.

As for the Supreme Court analogy, you are correct that they publish opinions. These opinions (are supposed to, anyway) include factual summations and a decision based on logical legal arguments and precedents. But FT moderators are not the supreme court. Randy is.

The mods are the cops on the beat. And as Rodney King could tell you, the more we keep the cops actions in the light of day and open to public scrutiny the better. If not public scrutiny then quis custodiet ipsos custodes?

Disclaimer: I trust most of the moderators and feel they do a good and mostly thankless job. But like Ronald Reagan, when it comes to the exercise of authority, I believe in the concept of: 'Trust, but verify.' So moderators: I love you all. I really do. Please dont moderate this post or give me a time-out. However, DO feel free to judge me based on the relative merits of my arguments that I publicly make here!

VPescado

Oct 11, 05, 8:56 am

kokonutz

Oct 11, 05, 9:21 am

kokonutz,

I think the problems you cite could be better mitigated by an ombudsman (or several of them) who have access to the moderators and any "star chamber" discussions without the unintended consequences.An ombudsman is a pretty good idea, short of full disclosure. And one hopes that Randy currently does fill this role.

The only problem with that is that I dont trust ANYone as much as I trust myself. And even that is not very much. I'd like to see for myself.

I suspect pretty much everyone who thinks they have been moderated poorly feels more or less the same way.

nsx

Oct 11, 05, 11:47 am

Please dont moderate this post or give me a time-out. However, DO feel free to judge me based on the relative merits of my arguments that I publicly make here!

:D

90% of moderation wouldn't be harmed by full exposure. Then there's that other 10%. One example that comes to mind is a program that provides a very generous unpublished benefit. Wide utilization of this benefit would result in its withdrawal (and in the case I am thinking of, this has apparently finally happened). Exactly whose interest would be served by letting everyone see this information? Nobody here. So whenever it was posted, I deleted it and PMed the poster. EVERY ONE of them agreed with my reasoning. With this approach, people who expressed a need for something similar to this benefit got a PM from me or someone else with the critical information. We used PM rather than posting, and I'm sure you would agree that posting all PM is a bad idea.

With moderation not publicly recorded, how do forum users determine whether the moderator is treating people fairly? Simple:

1. You know what YOU posted before it was edited or deleted.

2. You will occasionally see others' objectionable posts before they are edited or deleted.

3. Ask the people whose posts are getting edited and deleted the most what they think of the moderator. On the Southwest forum, you can ask curbcrusher and gregorygrady. :)

kokonutz

Oct 11, 05, 1:25 pm

As long as I have this forum, I just want to say that this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481459&page=4&pp=15) is a classic and timely example of inconsistent moderation that causes posters a GREAT deal of frustration.

unlike some of my counterparts

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am not interested in editing the personal attacks/comments out of a thread just to let it stand.

if you ar eunhappy with this thread closure, please take it up with one of your fellow FT'ers who indulged in name calling at other FT'ers .

you all know the rules, nuff said..

squeakr
MOD UALThe moderator in this instance herself points out that her moderation is inconsistent with other mod's approach to moderating personal attacks. In addition to being capricious I also find it condescending.

In this case, an entire thread was closed based on what she perceived to be some personal attacks by one or two posters in three pages of threads. Without getting into the finding of what constitutes a personal attack itself, it seems ridiculous to me that an ENTIRE THREAD should be closed as a result of the actions of one or two posters. If this is the precedent then I can get any thread I want to closed just by acting out there.

There really OUGHT to be both SOPs for moderators AND full disclosure/open deliberations. Poor and/or inconsistent moderation needs to be rooted out and stopped.

doc

Oct 11, 05, 1:50 pm

As long as I have this forum, I just want to say that this (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481459&page=4&pp=15) is a classic and timely example of inconsistent moderation that causes posters a GREAT deal of frustration...
There really OUGHT to be both SOPs for moderators AND full disclosure/open deliberations. Poor and/or inconsistent moderation needs to be rooted out and stopped.

---

Koko, again, as I've noted in earlier in this same thread:

---

Moderator Proper Proceedures (DO's)

Do, firstly and foremost, please remember to treat all members equally and with the utmost courtesy and respect. As moderators you are members first, and like any member(s), you are what you post.

Do always remember that you are moderators and not censors.

Do make a good faith attempts to first contact and clearly request posters (via PMs, email, or posts) remove any inflammatory material from their existing, as well as any any future posts.

Do remove, replacing with asterisks, any and all material that clearly violates the current FT TOS. Use HTML comment tags to remove the text from view. Additionally, place a message in the post to properly explain your actions and
and send a PM to the poster ASAP.

Do simply delete a thread if the initial post is deemed to be a flagrant violation of the TOS. Contact the poster ASAP.

Do issue, whenever necessary, a clear, concise, and unmistakeable warning to members, and be certain to document it as proof.

Do correct errors in links or HTML as necessary (no PMs are necessary)

Do close a thread if its participants continue to ignore repeated moderator
warnings, yet always state the reason why, prior to closing such a thread.

Do replace a post bearing any copyrighted article in its' entirety with a link to that article (if obtainable). Alternatively, eliminate all but the opening paragragh, or whichever is deemed to be the most important paragrah or two.

Do move a thread that "obviously" belongs in another forum, to the other
manifestly more appropriate forum. Yet, if there is any doubt, confer with moderators of both (original and destination) FT forums, or simply permit it to remain, particularly if there are already useful follow up posts, and/or many page views that suggest it will perhaps do just as well where it is. If in doubt, leave it.

Do use HTML comment tags to omit text rather than simply deleting it, e.g.


Do leave a post in its originally posted place unless it is not absolutely certain to be significantly better posted elsewhere.

Do be consistent as is humanly possible.

Do be sure that there is no room for anyone to ever doubt your integrity based upon your action(s) as a mderator.

Do remember that you too are subject to the rules, and always, without exception, abide by the FT TOS (terms of service).

Do indicate that you are posting as a member, and not a moderator, in such cases as appropriate, and vice versa.

Do always respond to a posters email or PM query and be sure to provide an adequate explanation to members.

Do always respect FT'ers privacy.

Do recognize that we are all imperfect, yet when you have made an error, please be both quick and complete in seeking to correct it.

Do understand and always remember that the use of supposed irony and satire in veiled efforts to demean another FTer is unacceptable.

Do only what is necessary to put out a flame and to maintain an orderly FT!

---

Moderator (DON'TS)

Do not close a thread unless it is absolutely necessary.

Do not close a thread because the topic has simply "run its course."

Do not close a thread simply because it has gotten "off the subject",
rather, suggest that a new topic be created to hold the new subject and ask
that the current thread return to its original topic. Close the thread only if it
is hopelessly off-topic.

Do not close a thread simply because it is a duplicate, or near duplicate
topic. Rather post a message referring to the previously existing topic and ask
FT'ers to post to the earlier thread instead. Closing duplicate threads is acceptable only during times of fast breaking news.

Do not ever elect to simply lock a thread without clearly stating a good reason why you did it.

Do not remove a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not move a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not do anything that will even give the appearance of showing favoritism for any member(s). Nor do anything to even give the appearance of showing disdain for any memer.

Do not under any circumstances use your empowered position to further any personal or group agenda(s). Do not forget that it is FT and its' agenda that matters.

Do not forget that you too are subject to the FT TOS and serve at the pleasure of management.

Do not post as a moderator, but rather indicate that you are posting as a regular member as noted above, in any such cases that might warrant it.

Do not fail to respond to a posters emailed or PMed questions.

Do not post personal correspondence of FT'ers, such as emails or PM's, nor the content therein, without the explicit consent of that FTer.

Do not, as any member would not, belittle any member, nor make any post that might be deemed as disruptive. Take care to not appear to be flippant.

Do not compound ones mistakes by further commenting on a hot/inflammatory topic, and possibly making matters worse. It's far better to not post further at all, if uncertain. Rather you should confer with other moderators and/or the FT management as necessary.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620&page=1

---

Would this help out Koko?

Also, notably, since there are several moderators both running for the TB and serving at present, do any of you have any thoughts on these proposed guidelines?

This represents the single most critical aspect of the future for FT in my humble estimation.

Would you obect to adhering to such? If no, why not?

Any thoughts, everyone?

Respectfully,

Mark

kokonutz

Oct 11, 05, 2:04 pm

Doc, yes. I like your guidelines a lot. My example would be covered by about 2 of your 'Do's' and 3 of your 'Don'ts'

I agree with you that poor/inconsistent moderation is my single biggest frustration with FT these days. If ANYTHING could eventually drive me away from this place, that would be it.

BTW, FWIW, I reported the above moderation as a 'bad post.'

Update:

I am pleased to report that other UA moderators have stepped in and are in the process of attempting to apply better, more consistent moderation to the example I supplied. It is my understanding that, to their credit, they were doing this even before I reported the above quoted moderation as a 'bad post,' and the above quoted post has already be edited to read:

squeakr
Moderator: Hilton HHonors & United Mileage Plus forums
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: San Francisco CA
Posts: 3,491

unlike some of my ESTEEMED counterparts
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in my earlier post, I didn't realize that cblaisd was already working on this thread.

All I was trying to say was that some moderators will go above and beyond what's expected and required to edit out comments that would otherwise lead to a thread closure. Cblaisd is one of those mods - and I absolutely respect that.

HOWEVER - this thread has been full of personal attacks and off topic comments and absent cblaisd's hard work, I not interested in editing the personal attacks/comments out of a thread just to let it stand. I will still suggest that if you are unhappy with this thread closure, please take it up with one of your fellow FT'ers who indulged in name calling at other FT'ers .

you all know the rules, nuff said..

squeakr
MOD UAL

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by squeakr : Today at 2:37 pm. Reason: clarification

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of moderators who apparently are going 'above and beyond' to provide good, consistent moderation.

IMHO, what is considered to be 'above and beyond' ought to be 'baseline.'

VPescado

Oct 11, 05, 4:35 pm

Interesting this example came up. Due to the nature of my platform, I have been in contact with several mods.

In any case, I had occasion to have a phone conversation with the moderator involved, and this particular thread/post came up.

I really don't want to discuss the particulars of this case (I neither want to use something expressed to me in private conversation against the person that said it, nor do I want to be accused of being an apologist for anyone).

I will say that this is a wonderful example of where an ombudsman would have worked - Anyone who felt closing down the thread was the wrong action to take could have contacted the ombudsman. The ombudsman could have talked to the mod, and weighed her reasoning in light of the standard practices of moderation, and determined if a problem existed.

It is great that another moderator stepped up, but I view it as a fortunate accident rather than any sign that there is nothing broken with the process.

An ombudsman is a pretty good idea, short of full disclosure. And one hopes that Randy currently does fill this role.

The only problem with that is that I dont trust ANYone as much as I trust myself. And even that is not very much. I'd like to see for myself.

Unfortunately, Randy does not have the time to fill this role. Ideally, the ORP forum would act as a clearing house for such issues, but most everyone will agree that the current state of ORP is far from that goal.

The problem is that there is no clear recourse if you feel a moderator acts inappropriately. An ombudsman gives you the ability to seek reconsideration.

As for trust, how do you deal with with the fact that you are not in the cockpit when you fly? Modern society requires trust at a certain level.

---

Edited to add: I've learned since posting this, that at least one person viewing this thread has incorrectly inferred some things about my conversation with a moderator. To be clear - I spoke to the moderator in question before the update to the problematic thread/post had occurred. The only discussion we had was in the context of an example of moderation.

So it appears that my attempt not to imply anything about the content of the conversation, can be misconstrued as implying that the details of this PARTICULAR thread/post/closing were at issue.

If you can follow all of that, YOU deserve to be elected to the TalkBoard.

Above all, I apologize to the moderator.

doc

Oct 11, 05, 5:13 pm

...Unfortunately, Randy does not have the time to fill this role. Ideally, the ORP forum would act as a clearing house for such issues, but most everyone will agree that the current state of ORP is far from that goal.

The problem is that there is no clear recourse if you feel a moderator acts inappropriately. An ombudsman gives you the ability to seek reconsideration.

As for trust, how do you deal with with the fact that you are not in the cockpit when you fly? Modern society requires trust at a certain level.

---

Agreed.

Again, truthfully, I think most all the Mods are great! :)

It's just a precious few that I'm concerned about.

To be frank, IMHO, the example provided herein is, unfortunately, somewhat commonplace, actually come to be expected, is and even quite bearable in many respects, as I see it. At least relative to what I've observed myself, and even experienced personally, they are. Look, for example, at the thread I quoted above entitled "Is there a question regarding "moderator guidelines?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620

Threads are routinely moved, deleted, derailed, locked, or some combination thereof, sadly, often with no notice ever.

Yet it is the far more egregious deviations that concern me and lead me to advocate the adoption of more clear guidelines, and greater accountibilty. Those where suspensions from posting are involved especially come to mind.

Should someone be administered a "timeout" by some other moderator from another forum, where they had not even been posting? Without any warning beforehand? If so, under what grounds?

Thoughts anyone?

BTW, there are actually one or two mods who, if they were pilots, well...I would take the bus or walk, rather then fly with them! :D

Mark

VPescado

Oct 11, 05, 5:24 pm

Should someone be administered a "timeout" by some other moderator from another forum, where they had not even been posting? Without any warning beforehand? If so, under what grounds?

Thoughts anyone?

I think there are some situations where this should be the case - for example the member whose first post is spam for DrSpankHappysHouseOfPorn.com (Ill be deeply embaressed if that is a valid url), should be dealt with quickly. If no mods for the victimized forum are around I would not object to another mod dealing with the thread, the post, and the poster.

However, I do feel strongly that the requirements for such an action should be set pretty high.

BTW question for Randy: Since doc and I share the same first name and exceedingly similar platforms and viewpoints, can we just pool our votes and do a coin flip for which one of us gets stuck with the job?

missydarlin

Oct 11, 05, 5:32 pm

If you examine my platform, (http://www.flyertalk.com/talkthevote/index.php?candidate=138) you will see that I have given quite a bit of thought to this matter, and have some fresh ideas that should improve things.

You do realize that the Talkboard does not govern the policies/procedures of the mods, don't you?

I think you have some positive ideas about moderation, but I would hope that both you and your constituency aren't of the expectation that your being elected to the TB is going to give you any sort of sounding board in which to offer your ideas. Have you considered applying to be a moderator?

The moderator group is in the process of revising their guidelines, and Randy.. as busy as he is ... is still quite vehement about having all moderation issues go directly to him rather than through an ombudsman/review panel.

VPescado

Oct 11, 05, 6:11 pm

kokonutz

Oct 11, 05, 6:17 pm

missydarlin

Oct 11, 05, 6:50 pm

I unfortunately also must conclude that your dismissal of the notion is due to a regrettable lack of vision. I find it ironic that you hold your view, when Randy was the very source of the question about our feelings regarding moderation. Obviously he thinks that TB member's views on the subject are relevent.

I must respectfully disagree that my conclusion is a result of a lack of vision, but rather from the experience of having Randy shut down previous TB discussions that attempted to wade into the area of moderation, as well as having had him repeat his feelings as such in person less than 2 weeks ago.

but YMMV.

missydarlin

Oct 11, 05, 6:53 pm

You make a good point. OTOH, Randy himseld DID ask this question.

Yes, Randy did ask the question. But asking the candidates their general feelings on moderation doesnt equate (to me) an openness from him to have the TB making decisions regarding moderation. If that is to be construed as my lack of vision, then so be it.

FewMiles

Oct 11, 05, 8:09 pm

FewMiles

Oct 11, 05, 8:34 pm

"It would seem that the sheer size and traffic of FlyerTalk would require Moderation. Are you of the 'anything goes/low moderation' POV, self moderation works best for FlyerTalk POV, moderation is really a member benefit POV or are you somewhere else on this issue? I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves, just the topic and what's right for FlyerTalk."

I don't know that I could say that there's a "one size fits all" approach for moderation. From my own experience and reading the perspective of my fellow moderators, I know there are different styles and preferences for each person. Some like to keep things in check a little more, while others prefer to hold the reins a bit looser. Part of it has to do with the moderator, but a lot also has to do with the nature of the forum too.

I don't really buy claims of "self moderation" because often it's used to describe people calling out violations of others on-thread and that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio by adding further off-topic commentary. Self moderation is what one does to oneself, not what one does to others.

I don't see that you could argue against the statement that moderation benefits all members of the forum. Moderators help to keep things a bit tidier here on FT and that always makes things more readable and useful and keeps FT where it's supposed to be -- as the premier source of information on all topics of miles, points, and travel.

FewMiles..

FewMiles

Oct 11, 05, 8:37 pm

I should add that I take issue with those who make disingenuous claims about "almost all the moderators are great, save for a few" and thus spin their campaign platforms into a crusade to change moderation. I think it's rather misleading to make promises that cannot possibly be fulfilled.

FewMiles..

doc

Oct 11, 05, 9:28 pm

You do realize that the Talkboard does not govern the policies/procedures of the mods, don't you?

I think you have some positive ideas about moderation, but I would hope that both you and your constituency aren't of the expectation that your being elected to the TB is going to give you any sort of sounding board in which to offer your ideas. Have you considered applying to be a moderator?

The moderator group is in the process of revising their guidelines, and Randy.. as busy as he is ... is still quite vehement about having all moderation issues go directly to him rather than through an ombudsman/review panel.

---

Again, the question asked here of those running for TB, from none other than Randy himslef is quite clear, no?

This question was submitted by member Randy Petersen (Because I am a general member/voter as well):

"... I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves, just the topic and what's right for FlyerTalk."

We simply elected to try to provide a constructive answer to the question Randy posed. Would you perhaps like to try also?

---

I must respectfully disagree that my conclusion is a result of a lack of vision, but rather from the experience of having Randy shut down previous TB discussions that attempted to wade into the area of moderation, as well as having had him repeat his feelings as such in person less than 2 weeks ago.

but YMMV.

I'm sorry, but could you please clarify this for me? Are you referring to Randy shutting down threads in your private (invisible to members) TalkBoard forum, and/or private (invisible to members) Moderator forum?

I ask since on FT, as we 'regular' members see it, while some threads concerning moderation have seemingly been successfully derailed and shut down, as was mentioned above, they generally are there to be read and commneted upon as these few examples below indicate:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196875

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196272

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=196272

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=278908

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=165996

--

I believe these public threads, among others, are open, rather than shut down.

In any case, are you saying that Randys' position is in stone?

You are aware I'm sure, that before you were elected to the TalkBoard, Randy indicated via email and specific posts that he had originally intended moderator issues to be dealt with by the TB?

Apparently he was moved to change his mind, no?

And we all know that Randy is generally quite responsive to members needs, as this FT board so well demonstrates.

Originally, Randy was not even much in favor of having moderators at all, as I recall.

How can we predict the future? Couldn't he just as well change his mind once again?

FWIW, while I exchanged emails with Randy a day or so ago, we did not discuss this issue specifically.

---

Yes, Randy did ask the question. But asking the candidates their general feelings on moderation doesnt equate (to me) an openness from him to have the TB making decisions regarding moderation. If that is to be construed as my lack of vision, then so be it.

Curiously then, do you mind if I ask you why you think he asked?

---

Judging from what I'm seeing here on FT, as well as hearing from various FT members who no longer participate, it seems to me that members in general are increasingly interested in this issue. The page views on such topic threads also appear to bear this out. And whether the TB directly deals with moderation or not, these members, like Randy, are voters! ;)

Are you of the mindset that moderation on FT can not be improved at all? Or can it? If so, then, how so?

Thanks:)

-Mark

VPescado

Oct 11, 05, 9:31 pm

I think it's a bit short-sighted to be calling out others for a "lack of vision" because they pointed out that Randy has previously said that moderation policy is not in the purview of TalkBoard.

This is indeed what Randy has said before and to be campaigning on a platform to change or otherwise have TalkBoard govern moderation is somewhat deceptive, IMHO.

FewMiles..

No, this is why I accuse her of having a lack of vision:

I would hope that both you and your constituency aren't of the expectation that your being elected to the TB is going to give you any sort of sounding board in which to offer your ideas.

I pointed out that it actually did afford me the ability to have a sounding board. It allows me enhanced access to Randy. It allows me to engage other members of the TalkBoard and build conscensus.

Do I believe that I will on my first day, submit a proposal for moderaration to be revamped according to some master plan of mine? Of course not. But I can work toward small incremental changes in mindshare. That is how the larger changes will come about.

Now lets take a look at my "somewhat deceptive" platform.

Only two out of the four planks deals with how moderation is conducted (Unless you want to connect the plank about requiring the TOS to be explicit, to be concerned with how moderation is conducted).

That aside, they are listed under a section that asks for among other things "goals for FlyerTalk for the future". They are not listed as promises that you can bank on. Higher up on the page you will see them described as "the direction I would like to take FT." And I stand by them in both of those contexts.

I have said more than once in this forum that I cannot promise success at any of my goals. I have promised to use my skills to make the effort. I have outlined how I plan to work towards them. Perhaps I can be accused of being optimistic . . . and I'll readily accept that criticism.

But to refer to the way I've run my campaign as deceptive is something to which I take great offense.

BTW, I've talked to several moderators about my platform, as well as former TB members (and at least one current one), and did not get any pushback until now.

Let me ask: Why do you think so many candidates mention moderation in their platforms? Are they conspiring to all deceive the membership? Why do you think Randy asked the question of TB candidates?

Do you too suffer from a lack of vision?. . .or are you merely being "somewhat deceptive"?

I trust the voters to see a clear-cut defference between candidates with fresh ideas and drive, and those that can't imagine anything ever changing.

missydarlin

Oct 11, 05, 10:05 pm

---
Again, the question asked here of those running for TB, from none other than Randy himslef is quite clear, no?

Yes. He asked "Are you of the 'anything goes/low moderation' POV, self moderation works best for FlyerTalk POV, moderation is really a member benefit POV or are you somewhere else on this issue?"

We simply elected to try to provide a constructive answer to the question Randy posed. Would you perhaps like to try also?

Would you perhaps care to refer to post #11 in this thread where I did just that?
---

I'm sorry, but could you please clarify this for me? Are you referring to Randy shutting down threads in your private (invisible to members) TalkBoard forum, and/or private (invisible to members) Moderator forum?

In any case, are you saying that Randys' position is in stone?

Randy has made it very clear to the Talkboard that moderation issues are not our job. If you want to call that stone, go ahead.

FWIW, while I exchanged emails with Randy a day or so ago, we did not discuss this issue specifically.

Interesting.
---

Curiously then, do you mind if I ask you why you think he asked?

Perhaps thats something you could ask him in your next email.
---

And whether the TB directly deals with moderation or not, these members, like Randy, are voters! ;) Yes, they are voters. Which is why they should understand that TB isn't a mechanism for change in moderation. Thats something that comes from Randy and the moderator group directly, at Randy's request

Are you of the mindset that moderation on FT can not be improved at all? Or can it? If so, then, how so?

There is always room for improvement. And I believe the moderators are addressing those issues in their forum, and by meeting with Randy directly to make sure that everyone is on the same page. Having had the privilege to attend one of those meetings makes me even more impressed with the dedication and commitment the moderator group has to making improvements and clarifications to the guidelines under which they work.

-

doc

Oct 11, 05, 11:21 pm

...Would you perhaps care to refer to post #11 in this thread where I did just that?

---

Randy has made it very clear to the Talkboard that moderation issues are not our job. If you want to call that stone, go ahead...
---

Perhaps thats something you could ask him in your next email.
---

There is always room for improvement. And I believe the moderators are addressing those issues in their forum, and by meeting with Randy directly to make sure that everyone is on the same page. Having had the privilege to attend one of those meetings makes me even more impressed with the dedication and commitment the moderator group has to making improvements and clarifications to the guidelines under which they work.

---

Missy, thanks very much for your prompt response.

Yes, I already read your post #11 below, and reread it now, as you asked.

I'm in the "moderation is really a member benefit" camp. I do believe that different forums have different personalities, and that says quite a bit about the community spirit that pervades FT.. and should be respected. But there comes a point, especially in the larger forums, or during more tumultous periods of change, (like when your elite benefits get "enhanced") ..where its beneficial to have some "firemen" (and we all know how I feel about firemen ;) )around to either put out the fire if needed, or at least keep it in a controlled state of burn.

I'm sorry. I assume there is a point here, but unfortunately, I really don't get it. Can you please help to clarify it for me? Aside from learning that you seem to like firemen, which I never knew, that is. :D

We all know, and I agree moderation should be a benefit, that mods are necessary, and that there are different personalities. And therefore what?

For example, what, if anything, do you think of the suggested guidelines I'd posted previously and above? Do you have some better ideas perhaps? Or are you saying that no guidelines are necessary?

Concerning the issue of why the question was asked, I believe that I'd asked YOU why you thought Randy asked us the question. Are you saying that I should email Randy to ask him why YOU think he asked it? ;)

Simpleton that I am, I think I may know why HE asked it - because he wants the candidates to answer it? :)

Who has said here that TB is a mechanism for change in moderation? Not me.

...While I understand that the TB does not make moderator policy, I am now, as I've always have been, an extremely firm supporter of our volunteer moderator members...
-Mark

If I haven't already convinced you that Randy has changed his mind before, well... I'll stop trying to now.

I'm glad that we can agree that there's always room for improvement. Let's improve it then, together. :)

Concerning the Mod Do you attended, what else can you reveal to us?

In any case, while I've asked questions here that, in my view, remain to be clarified, such as what did you mean about Randy shutting down previous TB discussions that attempted to wade into the area of moderation, I have no right to insist upon getting answers. So, perhaps having said too much aleady, I'll just leave it at that.

Thanks

-Mark

ozstamps

Oct 12, 05, 12:36 am

If I were in charge of FT moderation then

1) The moderator forum would be open on a read-only basis to all flyertalkers. Transparency in deliberations of the judicial branch of ft is just as important as transparency in the legislative branch of flyertalk.

2) ALL moderation actions would have to be noted by the moderator in a read-only forum. Every warning sent, every word edited, every thread moved would be required to be meticulously reported that read-only forum. That way we could all see who the good mods are, who the ninny ones are and whether any patterns and/or abuses are taking place among the moderator corps. This would also give posters the ability to see which posters are bad apples. Again, transparency. Shine a little sun on moderator actions and the posters they are moderating.

Excellent points, and I agree 100% with them. doc seems to echo similar sentiments. And some other candidates too, which is refreshing. :-:

Moderation in Moderation.

Important point to those reading. I do not expect my comments here to be embraced by all - simply as a fair slab of the TalkBoard candidates are current moderators. Look under their handle if you are not sure. missydarling does not show as a moderator but she is, and FewMiles was until VERY recently - and I'd be fascinated it he could share with us why he is no longer one. It may affect your vote - and his slate - who knows?

Anyway, I am sure my comments will be responded to, but like asking Billy Graham on his thoughts re abortion - you'd know before he posts what his answer is VERY likely to be. :)

Heck I have been on FT from the pre-historic days when there were NO moderators of any kind!

Just some one-armed guy called Randy Petersen - who would bang a few heads together now and again when the noise level got too high, and give folks (me included :)) a free ride in the Corporate RV Van around North Dakota for a while.

And guess what, that system worked quite well. For more than my first year here that was the entire moderation system. Then in July 2001 three Mods were appointed to help out. I do recall one of those was Craig6z (aka "Moderator2") who proved a quite superb choice. Even handed, polite to all, non controversial, and showing enormous judgement. And still moderates. An object lesson to every new (and existing) moderator I'd suggest.

The current system has got out of hand in parts. IMHO.

Entire posts (often many of them) vanish with no notice, no fingerprint, and no advice to OP. Often.

Several senior FlyerTalkers have been suspended in recent times - no advance warning, or polite note, or request in advance to edit or tone it down - no nothing.

If there are moderator guidelines as doc suggests there should be - I have no idea where to look them up. And if there indeed is such a thing, a suggestion I'd make is to implement a total prohibition of any active member being suspended, without an initial written warning or request to please edit or cool down. In 99% of cases I am sure the problem will end then and there. No sensible moderator will disagree I am sure?

I am not talking here of obvious fake handle newbies - trolls like that should removed when they appear.

I feel sure Randy sought a few Mod volunteers to cut down his workload. To get a few dedicated volunteer traffic cops to nap the occasional jaywalker, and issue a caution, or hand out a $20 fine. A very few of the current crop seem to feel the $20 ticket is not appropriate. They seem to prefer the Wyatt Earp from Tombstone approach and prefer to shoot the jaywalker in the knees and arms, "just to be certain". :rolleyes:

Randy asked in his post = "what's right for FlyerTalk." And whether I am elected to Talkboard or not - my view is simple -

Moderation in Moderation.

Sure FT is much larger now than it was when there were no volunteer Mods. There are 60 or 70 mods now I understand. They are I am sure a useful group of traffic cops to assist taking the workload off Randy in most routine matters. Keeping the role to traffic cops as was the original vision - and not the Green Berets - gets my vote.

Again I agree with kokonutz excellent point - let's have a lot more transparency than is there now. That's "right for FlyerTalk." Highlight EVERY action taken on a "read only" board. Good for the members, and good for the mods. Good for transparency.

An edit that is posted there would clearly need to be made for a good reason - or it reflects poorly on the poster or the mod. One or the other. And all can see that. My guess is edits by mods would halve if this system was implemented. Isn't that good for FT? ;)

For quite a while TalkBoard too was a very closed shop and members heard and knew near nothing as to what was going on. I campaigned long and hard for that to change and be more transparent .... and it did. I got yelled at and abused and flamed for daring to suggest that things be made more open and transparent. Go do a search under my handle in the Talk Board Forum if you wish. :D

But it happened. Town Hall now gets updated quite regularly, we know who votes for what - and when - and additionally the Talk Board Forum updates members far, far, better and more professionally or far more timely than only a couple of years back. I see the name spiff there a lot and do think he has had a lot to do with it. Good work. ^

civicmon

Oct 12, 05, 12:57 am

I'm also going to echo transparency.

Too much stuff goes on behind the scenes which is detremental to FT. Banning users w/ no warning, deleting posts and 'censoring' posters who a mod doesn't like (and don't tell me it doesn't happen...) goes too far.

If it's posted, it should stay regardless as it's content. Lock it, don't delete it, is my thoughts. Only time it's acceptable to delete is if the content is obscene (like a pic), but even then, edit the post, don't delete it.

kokonutz

Oct 12, 05, 7:22 am

This thread has given us candidates a unique, perhaps unprecedented opportunity to discuss a question about the process of moderation. Not, IMHO, each others relative merits in regard to this issue nor the relative merits of specific moderators.

This is a really interesting and really important question to me and looking at the thread hit count, apparently a lot of FTers agree. I think it would be a good idea to let our own and each others views on the process of moderation speak for themselves and thereby honor both the TOS and Randy's implied request that we not go negative. After all, I REALLY don't want this thread moderated or locked!!! :cool:

I know that just having the opportunity to openly talk and read about the process of moderation as it was applied to a thread I started has made me feel better about my FT experience than I have in a long time. After all, the FT moderator corps are a necessary bureaucracy. And the the only thing more frustrating in the world than dealing with bureaucracy is dealing with relatively unaccountable bureaucrats each of whom administer their responsibilities more or less as they themselves see fit and in relative secrecy.

So I believe more strongly than ever in:

- Clear and consistent standard operating procedures for moderators (mad props, Doc).
- Opening moderator deliberations to public viewing
- Requiring moderators to submit for the public record each and every moderation they undertake including demonstration of consistency with the SOP.

These would give posters both the consistency we desire and the accountability we deserve. And I would think that the really good moderators would enjoy getting their excellence in moderation on the public record. Who knows, it might even earn them free drinks at their next Do!

And FWIW, this is in no way an attempt on my part to spin my campaign into a crusade to change moderation. I openly acknowledge that moderation policy is not in the job description of the TB. But I've made my views on moderation clear to Randy many times in the past and will continue to do so whether I am elected to the TB or not and in all probability with the same (lack) of effectiveness! After all: it is HIS asylum. We are simply the inmates!

Cholula

Oct 12, 05, 8:28 am

This is a really interesting and really important question to me and looking at the thread hit count, apparently a lot of FTers agree.

Not speaking for all FT’ers but my take on the high thread hit count is that many are watching and waiting for the inevitable train wreck that follows a discussion on FT Moderation.
Otherwise, I don’t think a discussion on Moderation is top of most people‘s life on FT. The overwhelming majority just use FT to civilly trade information on miles and points and are unaware, unconcerned and unaffected by Moderation.
But few can avoid gazing at an imminent disaster....;).

ozstamps

Oct 12, 05, 9:13 am

Cholula - not sure I agree with you.

This thread right now has 1,756 page views. Near three times any other of the 12 questions, and indeed about 6 times most others.

Might it just be that given 12 threads to read, the FT members are 3 or 4 times more interested in hearing the views of potential Talkboard members about Moderation? Seems so. Perhaps it is a more important issue among members than some may think? @:-)

And let's not forget who asked the direct question we are answering here - Randy Petersen. Surely if he did not seek input on this matter he would not have asked? Perhaps he genuinely wants to know what TalkBoard candidates THINK on this issue? Genuine answers, not just politically correct ones.

I'll post that question again, as curiously, many Candidates have not yet answered it in their posts is:

It would seem that the sheer size and traffic of FlyerTalk would require Moderation. Are you of the 'anything goes/low moderation' POV, self moderation works best for FlyerTalk POV, moderation is really a member benefit POV or are you somewhere else on this issue? I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves, just the topic and what's right for FlyerTalk.

I'll be interested to look at these stats in a week's time when voting begins.

1,756
440
728
615
581
264
384
276
251
320
394
426

VPescado

Oct 12, 05, 10:07 am

Might it just be that given 12 threads to read, the FT members are 3 or 4 times more interested in hearing the views of potential Talkboard members about Moderation? Seems so. Perhaps it is a more important issue among members than some may think? @:-)

Agreed, but to play devil's advocate, there is a momentum effect: All other things being equal, a lot of folks will visit a forum and view threads from the top down, so the most often updated threads will get read more often. Others will look for the threads with the highest post/view counts.

So one reason (but likely not the only one) for this thread being popular, is that it is popular. :)

kokonutz

Oct 12, 05, 3:22 pm

I am sorry to report that 24 hours later, my Exhibit A (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=481459&page=3&pp=15) of what is 'broken' in regards to FT moderation remains broken.

Apparently a single post by an obvious troll can cause an entire fun and informative thread to be closed without recourse thereby meting out collective punishment to the innocent as well as the guilty rather then the offending posters alone being taken to task.

When this is the case, in Randy's words, that is NOT what's right for FlyerTalk, IMHO.

Hate to sound like a broken record, but when it comes to moderation posters deserve SOPs, consistency, accountability and transparency.

And beer.

And LH FC slippers.

doc

Oct 12, 05, 4:27 pm

Koko, sadly, this happens literally all the time these days. :(

Edits, closures, moving, and even outright complete disappearance of posts/threads are routinely observed.

Yet it is the sudden suspensions, with no previous warning, that now occur, that really concern me. And this, while other members, who commit blatant TOS violations routinely, are left unscathed.

Again, it is typically the very same few mods that are involved each time.

Nearly all the mods, do a fabulous job! :) While we may all have a bad day every now and then, a few have shown repeated "poor judgement", to say the least.

Most mod's by nature already follow the guidelines outlined in my post above, we absolutely need to have come clarity for all to see. This is, in part, why I adopted a very simple platform, "Transparency, Integrity, Equity & Consistency."

As I said before concerning the TalkBoard at the outset some time ago, "I'd envisioned a 'place' where everyone literally checked their egos at the 'door' along with any 'pettiness' and then proceeded to 'work' hard for the benefit of ALL FT'ers, by arguing respectfully their individual 'points of view!'"

Many folks who have been around this fine place for awhile will remember the events leading up to both the initial implementation of moderators on FT and the eventual development of the TalkBoard concept, some of which can be seen here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=192288

It is interesting to view from the current prospective now, as opposed to back then. Hope you find it somewhat interesting.

Thanks! :)

Mark

kokonutz

Oct 12, 05, 8:30 pm

I am pleased to report that the UA moderation team have applied consistent moderation to my example thread.

And while I personally laud them for this, it still seems to me that the whole incident is an excellent example of the need for consistency in moderation practices. And as I said to the mods there, those guidelines ought to err on the side of allowing posters to post and keeping threads unlocked while still keeping the trolls and TOS violations in check.

John C

Oct 12, 05, 11:29 pm

If I were in charge of FT moderation then

1) The moderator forum would be open on a read-only basis to all flyertalkers. Transparency in deliberations of the judicial branch of ft is just as important as transparency in the legislative branch of flyertalk.

I think everyone is in favor of the concept of unobtrusive moderation. Like freedom or happiness, some things are hard to be against. So let me first say that I completely agree with your objective.

That said, I disagree with your recommendation and am concerned about the consensus that seems to be forming towards greater transparency. To use your analogy, I would note that the United States Congress does debate in the open while the Supreme Court deliberates in private. I personally believe that model is a sound one.

When moderating decisions become public spectacles with people taking sides and with individuals winning and losing, I believe the entire community suffers. The idea here should not be to have the citizenry police the moderators. That infuses politics into the process in a way that invariably leads to additional conflict and division within the community. In my opinion, all of the complaints about moderation in this very thread would be magnified rather than solved by allowing public debate surrounding each and every action taken by each and every moderator.

You are absolutely right that there needs to be consistency. And you are absolutely right that individual moderators need to be accountable for their moderating decisions. But making that into a public event would be no more reasonable in my mind than conducting employee reviews in an open forum. The goal is to achieve consistency and that can only occur by having a vision of what successful moderating actually is and then enrolling individuals in that particular vision. People, being imperfect as we are, will make mistakes. The process simply needs to ensure that those mistakes have visibility and can be discussed and corrected. In my mind, the most effective reviews of close decisions occur in private discussions among those intimately familiar with the subject matter.

Let's use another example. Every week in the NFL there are a lot of close calls. Sometime, refs get it right; sometimes they don't. Every week the NFL officials review the films and see what went right and what went wrong and they then grade officials and help educate them about their mistakes so that they might do better in the future. Are those review sessions held during the games when passions are strongest with affected fans in attendance? Of course not. That would be ludicrous and would inject a lot of emotion into the process that would only distract from the mission. Moderators are a lot like those referees. They absolutely need to go through the review process, but keep the fans and the players and even the coaches out of it. Make the process about learning to get it right and not about individual personalities. I am of the opinion that when a review process becomes a public spectacle, it becomes personal. In my mind, that's very very bad.

Anyone reading the NFL example will likely immediate jump to the instant replay function. Great! Maybe that is what we need more of. In the NFL, the most senior official at a game can review things on the fly to make sure the team is getting it right. At FlyerTalk, there likely is a role for senior moderators to notice something going awry and to take steps to correct it. I actually assume that that happens. If Randy sees a moderator going nuts, I have to believe he would step in. So the question isn't so much whether the role exists, but rather whether or not it is sufficiently staffed. I think that is a reasonable question and perhaps we need more senior moderators who are more proactive in looking for moderating errors that deserve immediate attention. Maybe the community simply needs to report posts that contain moderating errors as well as those that require moderation in order to help those situations get better visibility with the right audience. There are many ways to tweak the system to help achieve better results. But as I said, complete transparency of the moderation function and each individual moderating decision would not be something I would support.

2) ALL moderation actions would have to be noted by the moderator in a read-only forum. Every warning sent, every word edited, every thread moved would be required to be meticulously reported that read-only forum. That way we could all see who the good mods are, who the ninny ones are and whether any patterns and/or abuses are taking place among the moderator corps. This would also give posters the ability to see which posters are bad apples. Again, transparency. Shine a little sun on moderator actions and the posters they are moderating.

I agree with making their decision visible, but again I would make it visible to some type of management structure and not to the community as a whole. We mostly need consistency with a vision, not a protracted emotional public debate.

Yeah, I DO acknowledge that mods are volunteers and are already giving of their time and this added burden is asking a lot. And that is the point. If mods had to fill out paperwork when they take moderator action, they would think twice and maybe even thrice before acting on a post. Again, allowing the maximum amount of a free market of ideas AND transparency as possible.

I agree we want moderators to carefully consider their actions knowing that they must be able to defend their action. I just don’t want to see the review in a kangaroo court. For the record, I am not now nor have I ever been a moderator on FlyerTalk. I believe I am an impartial third party to this whole discussion. And for whatever it is worth, I believe that some things have to be kept private. Performance reviews, and that is really what we are talking about here, should be done with a supervisor or at worst with a peer group. That’s my opinion.

FewMiles

Oct 13, 05, 12:07 am

John C, a well presented argument. I am in agreement that calls for transparency in the moderation process can only go so far. In response to several of the proceeding posts:

Moderation is not meant to be a process by which TOS offenders get publicly stoned and a moderator who makes a bad call gets publicly castigated. Consistency is a goal to which all the moderators aspire, I can comfortably say. But to achieve consistency, the moderators need to be able to have a non-public forum in which they can communicate to attain and retain consistency.

I would say that calls for a "system" of transparency that involve moderators logging every single action would result in few accomplishments other than to mire down the moderators with so much administrative minutiae that they can't get their jobs done. Perhaps this is meant as a way to keep the moderators distracted, so that people can be freer to skirt the boundaries of the TOS.

FewMiles..

civicmon

Oct 13, 05, 12:17 am

I would say that calls for a "system" of transparency that involve moderators logging every single action would result in few accomplishments other than to mire down the moderators with so much administrative minutiae that they can't get their jobs done. Perhaps this is meant as a way to keep the moderators distracted, so that people can be freer to skirt the boundaries of the TOS.

It's not about public stoning, but accountability and having a public ban record is NOT out of realm of reason.

Many sites do this...in fact, many sites limit the banning to just a handful of people, as opposed to everyone who has mod powers.

kokonutz

Oct 13, 05, 7:44 am

JohnC: I appreciate your thoughtful comments.

Going back a few pages, though, I don't think of the mods as any sort of court. Or like refs. They are more like cops. And not even like cops, more like volunteer deputies or even hall monitors. They are posters first and moderators second, as Randy likes to say. Yet they wield significant power over other posters. They are, in a sense, 'more equal' than others. As FT continues to grow that power simply HAS to be checked to verify good moderation.

You are saying that that power is best checked by other moderators and by super-moderators. I am saying that system has led us to where we are: inconsistent moderation applied capriciously. The problem with internal reviews and checks is that relationships tend to obscure perspective. Heck, if I were another moderator I would be inclined to take the word of another moderator over a poster. It is only natural. But sometimes even GREAT cops get so frustrated and angry that they join in on a beat-down after a hot pursuit.

Opening deliberations and making moderation a matter of public record means that each individual poster can judge for themselves both other posters AND moderators. I actually learned this lesson the HARD WAY on another board where I foolishly agreed to be a moderator where mods acted under a veil of secrecy. It was as huge a mistake there as it is here. I know for a fact that certain prejudices can create bad decisions and ultimately bad and totally unjust moderation.

I dont believe in giving posters any sort of forum (such as I have had here) to air grievances about specific moderation, effective though it seems to have been, other than the ability to report perceived bad moderation to other moderators or to Randy. I understand how such an open forum would turn into a navel-gazing circle-handshake.

All I am suggesting is that moderation be conducted in full light and be fully reported rather than having it conducted in the shadows. That posters deserve to know who the problem posters are AND how the various moderators moderate.

This way there can be no abuses AND no one will ever have to even wonder if they are being picked on or if their posts/threads are being inconsistency treated without EVERYONE knowing it.

I understand that being able to operate with impunity makes life easier for mods sometimes, but imho FT ought to be about affording the maximum leeway to the posters while still smacking trolls/TOS abusers in the back of the head. I think it is fair to both the good mods and to the posters to ask moderators to stand by their decisions in the light of day in full view of all posters.

Randy Petersen

Oct 13, 05, 9:47 am

I asked a simple question, one that i thought any reasonable candidate for the TalkBoard could understand. Apparently not. I believe in my question, I say "I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves..." But then some candidate comes along and tries to give us an example of a moderator action - i guess it was Exhibit A. I think the comment was about what's wrong with FlyerTalk. The reason i asked not to hear about moderators themselves, is that it is all about perspective. For instance, in Exhibit A - I actually see a member starting a post that has no relevance to the forum it is in. Swap out the name of the airline and is there any relevance? I also see far less than friendly replies in post #19,23,25,26,30 and 31. The interesting thing is that several members remark that the thread is heading toward the gutter. But does the members posting on this thread share any blame in the demise of the thread? No. We are lead to believe that it is all the moderators fault. There just never seems to be any accountabilty for any members culpability in these things.

There is no debate here about moderators themselves. Or at least i thoght that was the question being asked. If any candidate can't read the questions right, i sincerely have my own doubts they could be trusted to read the input of the members right.

Only the question, please.

kokonutz

Oct 13, 05, 1:13 pm

There is no debate here about moderators themselves. Or at least i thoght that was the question being asked. If any candidate can't read the questions right, i sincerely have my own doubts they could be trusted to read the input of the members right.

Well, you and I certainly agree about THAT much! (from my campaign 'manifesto'):

Am I QUALIFIED for the TB? Probably not. (http://www.flyertalk.com/talkthevote/index.php?candidate=140)I mean, I work for a trade group so I know Roberts’ rules and all that, and as a PROfessional lobbyist I sort of get the politics. But I am neither particularly bright nor particularly honest. My temperament makes me a much better bomb-thrower and hypocrisy-pointer-outer and black helicopter chaser and/or debunker than a responsible board member. As the first President of the TalkBoard once said in a 'private' TB forum: 'He is a drunken cad and there is no way he should ever have a position of responsibility.'

That said, I am sorry you missed my substantive points about the process of moderation. It IS frustrating when two moderators in a given forum practice very different moderation styles. It IS frustrating when the lowest common denominator gets to determine whether a thread remains open or gets locked. These are PROCESS issues. Not INDIVIDUAL MODERATOR issues! I am, as always, just calling it like I see it, Randy.

However, it looks to me like I am pretty ineffective at being able to communicate to you what I believe to be best for flyertalk posters, which is, after all, the entire point of the TalkBoard (I think).

Hopefully, for the sake of us all, this fact will influence a vote or two! ^

VPescado

Oct 13, 05, 2:54 pm

This is probably political suicide, but I think there are some subtle issues here . . .so here goes nothing.

I offer my comments with all due respect for Randy and under the assumption that he would prefer vigorous debate than to have a slate of yes-men running for TalkBoard.

I asked a simple question, one that i thought any reasonable candidate for the TalkBoard could understand. Apparently not. I believe in my question, I say "I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves..." But then some candidate comes along and tries to give us an example of a moderator action - i guess it was Exhibit A. I think the comment was about what's wrong with FlyerTalk.

You are absolutely correct you did not ask to hear about moderators. I think it is very unfortunate that the moderator was brough into discussion. Especially as the mod in question has absolutely no ability to defend herself in this publicly readable forum. That is unfair no matter how much you disagree with her actions.

However, that said, the thread does expose several issues regarding problems with the moderator infrastructure.

1) Inconsistancies in how moderation is applied.
2) The lack of a method of redress for posters that feel that they were wronged.
3) Lack of transparency in acts of moderation.

I believe that these issues are not entirely removed from your question - and several of us see these as issues as important enough to put in our platforms. To pretend that they don't exist is foolishness. [/quote]

The reason i asked not to hear about moderators themselves, is that it is all about perspective. For instance, in Exhibit A - I actually see a member starting a post that has no relevance to the forum it is in. Swap out the name of the airline and is there any relevance?

Please forgive my candor, but with all due respect, this point is a non-starter. In all of the airline and hotel forums I have spent time in, there are plenty of posts of this kind. The airline and hotel forums are about far more than their loyalty programs (in spite of their title or description). They all encompass threads regarding experiences when dealing with the respective companies. To shut down this thread for that reasion would be entirely inconsistant with the practices of other moderators - and indeed neither moderator involved with this thread raised this as a reason to take any action.

I also see far less than friendly replies in post #19,23,25,26,30 and 31. The interesting thing is that several members remark that the thread is heading toward the gutter. But does the members posting on this thread share any blame in the demise of the thread? No. We are lead to believe that it is all the moderators fault.

I agree 100%: posters on this thread were on several occasions, not playing nicely. However, that is not the point either. The issue raised is that the thread was closed down, and several people felt it was done so inconsistant with how other moderators would have dealt with it. The closing message even suggests that this is the case. Additionally, the lack of any mechanism of appeal comes into play as a direct result.

There just never seems to be any accountabilty for any members culpability in these things.

That's absolutely not true. I have seen edits by posters, as well as followups with apologies when a moderator (or even a non-mod member) has taken someone to task. I don't recall the last time I have ever heard a moderator apologize in a public forum for an action taken as a moderator.

I welcome you to find an example. Honestly, there never seems to be any
accountabilty for any moderators culpability in these things - That is not to say that there isn't any accountability, but it certainly is neither visable in specific instances, nor is there any public discussion that suggests in happens in general.

There is no debate here about moderators themselves. Or at least i thoght that was the question being asked. If any candidate can't read the questions right, i sincerely have my own doubts they could be trusted to read the input of the members right.

That was the question you asked, and as I state above, it was wrong to bring in a specific moderator and her actions - especially when she could not defend herself. But it was foreseable that the discussion generated by your question would expand to issues (or at least perceived isues) in how moderation is conducted. And further, that such a discussion would require examples (if more abstract than the one used).

Now, something that would be good to hear from you (Randy) about what role do you think TalkBoard should play in regulating moderation (as opposed to the individual moderators):

1) Should the Talkboard be allowed to suggest/make canges to the TOS which the moderators will enforce?

2) Should the TalkBoard be allowed to suggest/make changes in the struture and process of moderation?

3) Should the TalkBoard be allowed oversight over specific moderators and their actions?

I suspect just about all of the candidates as well as you will agree on questions 1 and 3 - but I think it would be quite interesting to view your thoughts on 2.

Also, given your previous feelings about the TalkBoard and moderation (as mentioned by other candidates), I am curious about why you asked this question to begin with. Do you see a bigger role for TalkBoard for matters of moderation as time goes on?

Randy Petersen

Oct 13, 05, 3:32 pm

kokonutz

Oct 13, 05, 5:27 pm

Its' not suicide at all. But it is very clear there are some candidates that do not know how to stay on topic and with that type of inconsistent behavior will not be trusted with my vote during these elections. If you fit that mold, then consider my personal vote lost to you. For those candidates who do understand my question and its parameters, you are still in the running for one more vote to your name. I'm looking for character and from what i can see, there are now less than 35 candidates offering it to our members.

And please, I'm not here to debate, I'm here to read an honest answer to my question - however painful that may be for you.If you dont want vote for me because you disagree with my views regarding moderation, then I cant say I blame you. I know that you and I have very different views about whether moderation ought to be a private matter or a matter for the public record. But it chaffs me that I am losing your vote for taking this thread off-topic. I have focused like a laser beam on the moderaTION, never on the moderaTOR. I have even admonished other candidates here to talk about the ISSUE, not each other relative to their position on the issue.

After all, it would be silly to blame an individual moderator for lack of consistency when they have never been presented with a moderation play book specifying how to handle situations and asked to abide by it in a verifiable way. I have nothing to say about the moderators themselves. Only the process of moderation.

I apologize if I have not made that clear in using the example thread; my intention in bringing it up was to talk about consistent moderaTION, not any specific moderaTORS.

As for taking responsibility for what I post: In that very example thread, I was asked by a moderator to edit a post I made and I immediately complied. That was some good, consistent moderation (perhaps somewhat appripos, I was asked to delete a comment thanking the mods for reopening the thread since talking about moderation, good or bad, is against the TOS!).

I have complied with many moderation requests here on FT, argued with mods when I thought they were being inconsistent and even served a 7-day time out for an act of civil disobediance when I strongly disagreed with a moderator's action. So please dont say I dont accept culpability or responsibility for my posts or my participation in threads. Of course, if there were a public record of all moderation actions, everyone would already know all this and would be free to judge both me AND the moderation of me!!!

My whole point in this thread is that mods ought to do the same: be given operating guidelines and be held accountable for those guidelines through public discussions and public disclosure of moderation actions.

So if you are going to not vote for me, Randy, please do it on my position on the issue, not on any misperception about my taking the focus off of the issue.

That all said, Randy, thank you for the opportunity to talk about the process of moderation. I particularly respect your asking the question knowing there are people here like me who hold very different views from your strongly held ones.

And thank you for taking time out of your European and African travels to contribute!

ozstamps

Oct 13, 05, 7:13 pm

To wander back to more GENERAL thoughts about Moderation in the larger picture and how it relates to Talk Board, - I have a suggestion.

Right now I understand there is absolutely no formal connection between the Talk Board and moderators. Other than the reality a number of Talk Board members are also Moderators, there is zippo connection.

The Talk Board "Town Hall" Forum is now updated regularly (thanks to the volunteer work from spiff it seems) and there is of course a Flyertalk Forum for Talk Board to raise matters for TB consideration or discussion. I was yelled and screamed at for publicly asking for some progress in this area, and am glad to see how much progress has been made.

In relation to Moderators there is a solid brick wall. To both members - and to Talk Board. Nothing officially can be said or asked.

It is like trying to read the internal minutes and deliberations of the FBI on the web .... good luck trying. :)

Randy has asked for Candidates thoughts on this matter in terms of "WHAT IS RIGHT FOR FLYERTALK". To that extent those here are able to outline some general views that ordinarily are verboten to be aired on FT.

Well I see many candidates above agree there does need to be a lot more transparency and a lot more public accountability for Moderator actions. That is exactly what they get from Talk Board right now, and there is no valid reason whatever why members cant get a little more of that from the volunteer Moderators. We get zero now, so any move forward is progress.

If Talk Board acts on the input of members, the road runs cold if that input involves Moderation input it seems. As Talk Board officially has none.

If Talk Board are meant to be the mouthpiece of the members to recommend things to Randy - why can't they vote to recommend a 'Read Only' forum as many above have urged be put in place? Or put forward a proposal that no established member may ever be suspended without the courtesy of a short note of warning to cool things or consider an edit etc?

Senior members can and are being suspended in recent times with no such advance advice whatever. If the Moderators appear unwilling to agree to such written guidelines, the members, via Talk Board, may well be able to secure them if there is a formal connection between the 2 bodies.

Transparency and openness and accountability.

With that in place the moderator actions will likely halve as no-one among them will want to be seem deleting entire strings of posts without trace, or any advice to the OP's - or suspending members with no notice - and then needing to own up to it on a read only board. Only a very few individuals do this I stress, but it certainly does occur. :(

Likewise members making dumb posts will be less likely to if they are publicly visible on a permanent basis. Seems like a "Win, Win" all round for Flyer Talk surely? It is a 2 way street. And remember, that question from Randy again was: - "WHAT IS RIGHT FOR FLYERTALK".

Transparency and openness and accountability.

The clear FACT is that this Moderator issue is what the members are the most interested in of the dozen threads in this Forum.

The views meter on this thread has roared ahead to be FOUR times the views of the next highest topics. It was three times higher last time I outlined the numbers.

Members clearly want to know, and it seems clear to me by their keen interest, that members hope for some change to eventuate as a result of this election.

My thoughts on this were laid out in some detail in post #51:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4713994&postcount=51

So what do the other Candidates think on establishing a formal connection between the Talk Board and the Moderators? As I said there appears to be ZERO right now.

I repeat again my earlier relevant comment that a good number of Candidates are moderators, (or were recently Moderators - like Few Miles) whether their handles show it or not, and I can fully understand if their POV on this is somewhat different than mine. ;).

That's OK, but I'd like to hear it. It may well be they fully agree - who knows? It may well be they feel everything is rosy in the garden - fine - the members I am sure would be keen to read each member's thoughts BEFORE they vote.

Heck many current Mods may support this idea 105% and have simply never been asked to vote on it - that is very possible. If their moderator actions are fair, balanced, logical and non-personal, they would have no issues whatever with them being visible to all I feel sure? ^

-------------------------------

My Election Platform is clear: (http://www.flyertalk.com/talkthevote/index.php?candidate=144)

State a platform motto or goals for FlyerTalk for the future:

I am my own person and call it as I see it. I am part of no clique, and members know a vote for me will ensure a member elected to TalkBoard who will raise issues without fear or favour or party political line. I am a great advocate for transparency and openness and do think we have seen a lot more of that in recent years.

VPescado

Oct 13, 05, 8:54 pm

I am part of no clique . . . .

You are kidding, right?

OK, I am sure to lose Randy's vote for going off topic, but somebody needs to provide a scorecard for the voters.

There are two cliques. And Glen, while I consider you a friend, I must point out that you are part of one. And this is not necessarily bad - political parties are a pretty widely accepted construct - but usually the members don't deny the party's existence.

So without naming names (other then Ozstamps'):

Clique 1 consists of about five people who want to take a very conservative course of action with Flyertalk (eg. very high bar to the creation of new forums; don't want the TalkBoard to have influence over any aspect of moderation; etc.). I disagree with them, but respect their right to hold their views. It would be nice if they were a little bit more honest about their collusion however. You can see some shadows of the grouping when you look at how quickly they will run to each other's defense and pat each other on the back. From my understanding, these are not simply a group of people that happen to share the same views. Instead, this is a gang that decided to act in concert before the debates ever started.

Clique 2 (of which I believe Ozstamps is a member) holds views closer to mine, although IMHO their views are a bit more radical. You can spot them as well. Look for the other group of folks patting each other on the back. Notice how time and again they mention each others posts. Notice how when I express the exact same view (no matter whether before or after the members of the clique do), my posts never seem to get much notice from this group. My understanding is that their main goal is to keep as many members of clique 1 out of office as they can.

By now I expect that some of you (especially those that are less familier with current FT gossip), think that I am a paranoid freak. So be it. At least you are still reading to what I have to say and you can judge for yourself.

I represent an alternative to both cliques. I want to progress FT. I am the candidate who discusses vision, and building consensus. I am the candidate who has experience doing exactly that in my day job (See my answer to debate question 10).

Take a look at the folks who are publicly supporting me on the the rest of the forums. They are respected members who have given greatly to FT: People like Dhammer53 (a former Talk Board Member, and much respected member of the community), and letiole (a current moderator, and very involved behind the scenes in making FT a better place). These are people of character with whom I have spent time discussing ways to make FT a better place. These are people truly not associated with any cliques. They are not beholden to anyone - however they know me and think that I would be an excellent choice for TalkBoard member. Who do you see supporting the clique members besides themselves?

Now getting back to the topic of "going off topic": I apologize for not sticking precisely to the question at hand, but I am under the impression that this is a debate. Debates involve rebuttals. Debates involve the discussion of related issues and ideas - not just a sequence of quick answers. If this loses me some votes, so be it. There is no other real opportunity on FT to get our ideas and positions out to the members beyond this forum, and I for one am going to take advantage of it.

I view this debate to be a marketplace of ideas, and in this marketplace, my store is Open for Business.

bhatnasx

Oct 13, 05, 10:59 pm

That's absolutely not true. I have seen edits by posters, as well as followups with apologies when a moderator (or even a non-mod member) has taken someone to task. I don't recall the last time I have ever heard a moderator apologize in a public forum for an action taken as a moderator.

I welcome you to find an example. Honestly, there never seems to be any
accountabilty for any moderators culpability in these things - That is not to say that there isn't any accountability, but it certainly is neither visable in specific instances, nor is there any public discussion that suggests in happens in general.

I haven't posted much in this thread other than my response to Randy's question earlier - and I should be asleep right now since I have to be at the airport in 3 hours for a 6AM flight for a MR - and I apologize for taking this off course from the original subject of this thread, but I have been reading it, as have many others. But on behalf of the volunteer moderators on FlyerTalk, I do want to point out that this is not the case. I will point out an example for you - and so as not to violate any TOS or anything by discussing specific moderator actions of other mods, I will use myself as an example. Please see post #4 & note the times of the post & the times of the edit.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=427194

And as a reminder, I'm on a mileage run from tomorrow through Monday, so I will most likely be offline for the majority of the time. And now its time for bed!

kokonutz

Oct 14, 05, 11:34 am

Out, out, brief candle! Discussing the process of moderation's but a walking shadow, a poor player that struts and frets his hour upon the stage and then is heard no more: it is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=482370)

civicmon

Oct 14, 05, 3:27 pm

TB should address issues of moderation.

RP should address issues of individual moderators.

A blanket "no discussion" is bad since when addressing general policy, it makes the TB a lame duck. A issue with a person should be in Randy's court, however.

doc

Oct 17, 05, 1:29 pm

Again, concerning the aformentioned proposed Moderator Guidelines I'd worked up last year with Randy, what are your thoughts, if any?

Should we be expecting our moderators to operate according to such guidelines? Or not? To what, if anything, would you object? Or change? Please share with us all, thanks.

I'm particularly keen to hear from any of the moderators who are also running for TB, since your experience is invaluable.

Are you in favor? Or opposed? Or are you somewhere else on this issue? Again, I'm not interested in hearing about specific moderators themselves, just the topic in general and in what's "right" for FlyerTalk.

Thanks! :)

Mark

John C

Oct 19, 05, 9:50 am

Again, concerning the aformentioned proposed Moderator Guidelines I'd worked up last year with Randy, what are your thoughts, if any?

Doc -
I personally think you did a very nice job on those guidelines. I think they are well thought out and well presented and I think they would likely be a solid step forward.

And while we need some type of guidelines for moderators in order to have any chance at consistency, that alone is not enough. Consistency comes from systemic enforcement of standards. You must have the standards, but you must also have a means of review and enforcement because it is not just about the standards but also how they are applied. In any moderating effort, there is a lot of judgment. I notice you do try to incorporate collaborative effort on close calls, but the entire scheme for managing the function needs to be better defined in my opinion. And, of course, you do not go into the sticky issues of suspensions and such at all. That also needs to be fleshed out. When there were 1 or 2 or 3 mods, it was easy to coordinate but as the team continues to grow, there is an entire management function and staff leveraging that needs to occur in an orderly manner.

So, while I think there is still more work to be done in really setting up the entire structure, I believe your policies are a great starting point that could help manage the expectations of posters and moderators alike. That's my two cents worth anyway.

doc

Oct 19, 05, 10:58 am

Should I perhaps view those with no comment on these proposed "moderator guidelines" as being tacitly in favor of adopting them? ;)

Aside form Koko, Oz, and now John, there has been very little comment. What should we, as voters, think? Do the TB candidates care about this issue? I'd hope so. Is there anything among the guidelines proposed that anyone finds objectionable? Or clearly not in the best interests of FT?

Also, FWIW, some related questions, if I may:

What do we really know about how are moderators are selected? Can we possibly improve this moderator selection process? Should we possibly be considering some elective process, as with the TB, to select our moderators?
Are you in favor of this current practice of appointments, or do you prefer elections? Or are you somewhere else on this issuue? Again, I'm not interested in hearing about specific moderators themselves, just the topic, in general, and what is "right" for FlyerTalk.

Are we all truly cognizant of how the widespread editing and/or deleting of posts without any advance warning, or sometimes even any notice after the fact, may effect the member(s) who earnestly feel that they have been dedicating their time and presumably also some bit of "wisdom" to FT? Does this have a "chilling" effect? Cetainly, member suspensions with no warning do, I believe. Should these practices be permitted, or is there possibly a better way? Are you in favor of this practice, or do you dislike it, or are you perhaps somewhere else on this issue? As Randy asked, I'm not interested in hearing about moderators themselves, just the topic, in general, and what is "right" for FlyerTalk."

Are there posts that actually violate the current TOS and yet somehow do not get the attention of moderators? If so, how can we "fix" this?

Should every moderator have administrative powers to suspend fellow members? Should this include our volunteer moderator members as well? Or is there possibly a better solution to be found?

Can we possibly implement some workable system to help Randy decide on the increasing number of appeals of suspensions/timeouts in a more timely manner?

And lastly, as John also alluded to above, is there any consistency now? How do we achive consistency in the enforcement of our standards, should we ultimately adopt them? Put another way, how will a moderator know if they have "stepped over the line," so to speak?

And what happens if a moderator does step over this line? Is there any mechanism, at present, to deal with this? Shouldn't there ideally be a "process"? Again, as with all these issues being raised, I'm not interested in hearing about any specific moderators themselves, just the topic, in general, and what is "right" for FlyerTalk.

We want the very best FlyerTalk for all that we can possibly have.

Thanks! :)

Mark

VPescado

Oct 19, 05, 11:17 am

Should I perhaps view those with no comment on these proposed "moderator guidelines" as being tacitly in favor of adopting them? ;)

Doc,

In my case the approval is more than tacit. I think you have a lot of good ideas and have put a lot of thought into them. While I might not agree to the letter with every specific idea - you can bet that, if elected, I will "borrow" a lot from the document as I lobby for changes that should be made regarding the policy of moderation.

ozstamps

Oct 19, 05, 7:52 pm

Doc,

In my case the approval is more than tacit. I think you have a lot of good ideas and have put a lot of thought into them. While I might not agree to the letter with every specific idea - you can bet that, if elected, I will "borrow" a lot from the document as I lobby for changes that should be made regarding the policy of moderation.

I echo that. ^

Some actions on the board in recent days increase my resolve.

CameraGuy

Oct 19, 05, 8:38 pm

I echo that. ^

Some actions on the board in recent days increase my resolve.
Remember, your actions over the past 4 years have also consistently increased the resolve of MANY FT'ers.

It's gotta be tough to have past unacceptable behaviour highlighted, isn't it?

ozstamps

Oct 19, 05, 9:29 pm

Camera Guy - you are 100% correct that recent actions of others has "increased the resolve of MANY FT'ers."

You should see my inbox.

Negative and dirty tricks campaigning NEVER works - anywhere in the world, for any kind of election.

I think recent events will prove that adage very nicely once again. ^

bhatnasx

Oct 19, 05, 10:04 pm

I'm particularly keen to hear from any of the moderators who are also running for TB, since your experience is invaluable.

Based on what you've got written in this post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4711647&postcount=34), I would pretty much agree with most everything you've written - and I do believe, honestly, that the majority of moderators out there do practice this style of moderation.

The only one I would slightly disagree with is:

Do not close a thread simply because it is a duplicate, or near duplicate topic. Rather post a message referring to the previously existing topic and ask FT'ers to post to the earlier thread instead. Closing duplicate threads is acceptable only during times of fast breaking news.

In the last week or so, I closed 2 seperate threads on an AA fare from WAS-LAS. In both instances, members were directed to the original thread. In this scenario, it, IMHO, does not make sense to leave a thread open as there is already discussion on the exact same topic & its recent discussion.

Other than that, I believe in & practice most of what you say & I support it, not only as a moderator, but as a FlyerTalker.

doc

Oct 20, 05, 12:15 pm

Based on what you've got written in this post (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4711647&postcount=34), I would pretty much agree with most everything you've written - and I do believe, honestly, that the majority of moderators out there do practice this style of moderation.

The only one I would slightly disagree with is:

In the last week or so, I closed 2 seperate threads on an AA fare from WAS-LAS. In both instances, members were directed to the original thread. In this scenario, it, IMHO, does not make sense to leave a thread open as there is already discussion on the exact same topic & its recent discussion.

Other than that, I believe in & practice most of what you say & I support it, not only as a moderator, but as a FlyerTalker.

---

Thanks very much, Bhatnasx.

To be clear, unless I'm mistaken, I do not see anything that you'd disagree with me about here at all. At least I agree with you! :)

I would do, or have done, just as you had done here. And I certainly can't see where any of the aforementioned guidelines would be "broken" here by doing just as you suggest. :)

Would you, however, like to see a member have their posts removed entirely, or alternatively placed in another thread, with no warning or notice whatsoever? Is it okay to simply do this, ie a hard delete or wholesale move, with neither a notation in the threads of interest or a note to the poster?

More importantly, would you wish to see a member suspended, without warning, for linking together newly posted threads with a previously posted thread of their own?

Or would you want to see a member suspended, without any advance warning for simply making too many posts?

I would certainly hope not.

Incidentally, I only prodded Randy about the need for such improved FT moderator guidelines via email and posts. For the record, he is actually the one that began the list of MODERATOR DO's and DONT's. I just worked with him on trying to complete them.

And most importantly, again, I have absolutely nothing to say but good things about your particular moderating here on FT from all that I've seen and heard. And that is also true for nearly each and every moderator that I know. Despite such minimal training and limited guidelines, most have done an exemplary job on a purely volunteer basis. Probaly 95% or more of the moderators are simply excellent in performing an essentially thankless task. HUGE kudos to the collective FT mod team. :)

Yet there have been a few, IMHO, who apparently need some additional direction, if they are to continue be trusted with such responsibilities on FT.
The handful, or less, that need help should get it, no? That's what the aformentioned suggested guidelines are for! Thanks! :)

Mark

CameraGuy

Oct 20, 05, 12:29 pm

The horse is dead, please let it rest in peace.

bhatnasx

Oct 20, 05, 12:49 pm

Mark,

To answer your questions, I'll refer you to post #9 where I have answered Randy's question (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=4697423&postcount=9).

To give you a blanketed statement, I believe that everyone, regardless of who they are, how long they've been on FT, whether they are a TalkBoard member, or a moderator, should be treated with respect & given the courtesy of notification. Without that courtesy, only anger & contempt occurs & that is not beneficial for FlyerTalk.

However, if there is an extreme violation of the TOS, I see no issue with a suspension be handed down immediately and a follow up email being sent explaining why.

I hope this explains my position. That said, let's try to follow CameraGuy's advice here & let some issues in this thread go for the time being and try to focus on the question that Randy initially posed.