TalkBoard Elections/06 - Question 6: Moderators vs. TalkBoard Influence

This question submitted by christiansen:
Do moderators' actions or TalkBoards' motions influence FlyerTalk more
significantly? Reason

- If you feel that moderators' actions are more significant: In your opinion
what is the rational that moderators' are appointed and not elected?

This question submitted by christiansen:
Do moderators' actions or TalkBoards' motions influence FlyerTalk more
significantly? Reason

- If you feel that moderators' actions are more significant: In your opinion
what is the rational that moderators' are appointed and not elected?

I believe that they are appointed, and should be appointed, simply because there are too many to elect them.

That having been said, I do, indeed, feel that too much authority has been given to moderators and that it should be TalkBoard which establishes all policies -- and the moderators who enforce them.

This question submitted by christiansen:
Do moderators' actions or TalkBoards' motions influence FlyerTalk more
significantly? Reason

- If you feel that moderators' actions are more significant: In your opinion
what is the rational that moderators' are appointed and not elected?

I am of the opinion that moderators influence FlyerTalk more significantly. They are on the front lines and do a great job, for the most part, keeping FlyerTalk one of the most civil IBB I've been involved with (and our posters deserve a lot of credit for this, as well).

Moderators should not be elected. It shouldn't be a popularity contest - rather, moderators should be in place to reflect and represent the direction and wishes of the HOM and of Randy.

I won't get into TB and the role I think it should (or should not play) in moderation here as Dovster did. It's a question not specifically asked here. If it's asked, I'll be happy to provide an answer (OK, OK: It would look almost identical to Dovster's).

--Rich

Did you know that the moderators get together and have Moderator Do's hosted by Randy?

I didnt know that, but I think it is a great idea. I got to sort of crash their party last Friday night and it was really interesting and eye-opening. Unfortunately, by the time I got some of the mods there drunk enough to talk about what they actually DO at the ModDo's I was too drunk to remember their answer. :rolleyes:

As I imply in the other thread, I do hope that Randy pulls them together to remind them to not let their nitpickiness get the better of them and instead moderate best by moderating least. Maybe a TB candidate who is also a moderator can shed some more light on what goes on at the Moderator Do's. @:-)

Specific to the question, though, here's the difference, I guess: While the TB can deny the creation of a new community or close an existing one based, one hopes, on he will of the posters, a nitpicky moderator can easily ruin the enjoyment of a forum community, alienate posters and basically make it no fun to come here anymore.

Thus, we are all best served if Randy and the HOM can pick moderators they think will do a good job and, frankly, be able to fire them if they dont do a good job.

Hi

Well I can see that the moderator issues has its 2nd question already, like I said before its something that will always be debated/discussed due to the various views of FlyerTalk community.

Anyway, yes any moderation of any forum has a significant influence on FlyerTalk, the reason being that if someone has had to be moderated for some reason then they must just leave the community and post somewhere else if they have thought themselves to be hard done by.

On another note, if folk know that the forums are moderated then they will act more IAW with the TOS and behave themselves rather than start massive flame threads or very OT posts.

Moderators should be appointed but before hand it should be discussed and a look at their past postings habits and also how helpful they have been in that particular forum they want to be moderators in. Also a good knowledge of the forum subject is a must.

If we had elections then we would spend more time debating or discussing things rather than getting on with the task at hand and moderation is a necessary evil we must live with.

Regards

I think the relative amount of influence both groups have is summed up by what would happen if they disappeared overnight. If TB vanished, then FlyerTalk would continue to function. If the mods vanished, then yes, it would continue to function, but the larger, higher volume boards would get more and more acrimonious, and there would be a lot more spam threads to deal with - in short, the user experience would be a lot worse, relatively quickly.

Why are the mods not elected? Because mods shouldn't be appointed by who is most popular, but by who can do the best job - which does sound a very bizarre thing to say since I've put myself up for TB :D But since I do think I can do the best job.... ;)

Moderators have more influence over the direction of FlyerTalk than the TalkBoard. TalkBoard is largely relegated to making suggestions about the layout and running of the FlyerTalk community, which the House of Miles is free to implement or ignore (as I said in response to Question 5, the power of TalkBoard is granted, not inherent). The moderators have responsibility for the day-to-day interactions within the community. The system is similar to a non-profit or state agency with a Commissioner or Board and a Deputy or Executive Director. The Commissioner or Board makes slight “big-picture” nudges in the operation, while the Deputy Commissioner or Executive Director is in the trenches overseeing the grunt work.

Given this analogy, should moderators be elected? In my opinion, no. Moderation works through consistency and the moderators (eventually, perhaps) being in-tune with the community they moderate. Imagine the chaos that would ensue if one year the Thingamajig forum elected moderator whose platform was more laid-back, anything goes, and then next year decided to go with a strict disciplinarian, and the next year goes back to the free-for-all candidate, and so on...

I don't really see the current moderator corps as dysfunctional or otherwise broken, so I believe the current appointment system works.

Moderators' actions simply serve to keep FlyerTalk in line with the purposes for which it exists. The TalkBoard advises the owner of the bulletin board on changes and improvements to the purposes for the board exists.

For these reasons, I think the TalkBoard actually has more influence over the big picture of the board while the moderators' actions prevent that big picture from swimming out of focus.

I believe the talk board has more influence on Flyertalk than moderators.

Talk board can change the look/feel of the forums, while the moderators enforce the rules of the forums, as well as welcome and assist new members.

However, generally speaking it is the members who have the most influence on FT and whether or not people keep coming back for more.

I believe the moderators‘ actions affect users more than TalkBoard, mainly because if a user’s post gets deleted, or they get suspended, it is more on a personal basis. But I also believe that TalkBoard is almost as important. Moderators are making sure everything runs smoothly in the forums, nothing is posted that violates the TOS, while TalkBoard brings the ideas of the users to make the community grow. Without moderators, there would be complete chaos on the forums, but then without TalkBoard users opinions won’t be heard, making it a distant community where they might not find it so inviting and leave or never join in the first place, making FlyerTalk nowhere close as it is today.

They each exert influence in different ways. I think that Randy has done an excellent system with the mods and that something that isn't broken should not be fixed. I do not want to dwell on Moderator issues as I do not believe that it is the TB's business, neither in the past nor in the future.

Moderators have more influence as they actually have the power to change a thread. and their influence is daily. The Board is advisory only and I am happy with the current system.

Neither moderators or TalkBoard members have the greatest influence. The influence is in the members. Members are the ones who vote for TalkBoard - who should be voting for motions that will benefit the general membership. Members are the ones whom the Moderators are here to assist.

TalkBoard members are elected to protect the interests of the members. Moderators are appointed to protect the interests of FlyerTalk.

In overall direction, I think it is obvious that the Talkboard has more influence. The Talkboard determines new forums, deletion of forums and organization of the forums. If used properly, that is tremendous influence.

On the other hands, the moderators handle the day-to-day actions that make the experience enjoyable. Sometimes, it is like herding cats. Can a moderator have influence in a specific forum? Most definitely.

So, I guess I feel that both groups have influence in different ways.

William

I often think of the "structure" on FT as being much like that of the US Government. We have an Executive Branch (Randy and the House of Miles), a Legislative Branch (TalkBoard), and a Judicial Branch (TalkTeam).

The moderators (TalkTeam) aren't there to create the structure but to make sure that it is enforced according to the Constitution (Terms of Service) and in line with what the TalkBoard intended. Whereas the moderators should act in accordance with previously decided policies and procedures - the TalkBoard and House of Miles both decide when those policies and procedures should change.

I think that all have important roles in the day to day operations of FlyerTalk - but all (if acting within intended capacity) should function differently.

I often think of the "structure" on FT as being much like that of the US Government. We have an Executive Branch (Randy and the House of Miles), a Legislative Branch (TalkBoard), and a Judicial Branch (TalkTeam).

The moderators (TalkTeam) aren't there to create the structure but to make sure that it is enforced according to the Constitution (Terms of Service) and in line with what the TalkBoard intended. Whereas the moderators should act in accordance with previously decided policies and procedures - the TalkBoard and House of Miles both decide when those policies and procedures should change.

We are in total agreement with that. The problem is that this is not the way things operate today.

The TOS prohibits peronal attacks upon moderators (and I agree with that).

It also prohibits "On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline". I don't agree with that -- as long as no attacks are made -- but I agree it is in the TOS.

The TOS, nowhere, prohibits discussion of moderation policies.

In fact, when a moderation policy question was raised on ORP, a moderator locked the thread. Randy re-opened it, saying "Actually i find this a fair question. My concern over the typical posts about moderation, is that it's not about moderation, it's about an individual who happens to be a moderator and as we have TOS rules in place to discourage talking about other members in person, that same rule would reasonably apply to a moderator as well if that moderator is named as the sole reason for the rant.

This question seems more about a process of moderation."

Obviously, with no TOS prohibition on discussing moderation policies, and Randy having made it clear that he does not object to it, there is no reason not to allow it.

Moreover, the TalkBoard has never voted not to allow moderation policy discussions on TalkBoard Topics.

Yet they are, indeed, prohibited there. In fact, not only are discussions of moderation policy not allowed, but a mere mention of moderation can get a post removed and a warning letter sent to the poster.

(I would be happy to provide a specific example of this except it could run foul of the TOS provision I cited above. If the TalkBoard Forum moderators give me permission to do so, I will give exact details.)

Therefore, what you basically have is moderators having decided, on their own and without a TOS prohibition or TalkBoard approval, that there can be no discussion of moderation policies on TalkBoard Topics.

This is not a case where, as you said, moderators "act in accordance with previously decided policies and procedures."

Since moderation is outside of Talkboard remit, there would be no reason to have discussion of moderation on Talkboard Topics - it would be as off topic as discussing SQ's new business class seats. It would also raise a false expectation that it is something Talkboard is concerned with - when it's pretty clear that it is not.

Jenbel, here is a link to the TOS, (http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php) please show me where it says that moderation is off limits to the TalkBoard.

On the other hand, the official TalkBoard description (http://gallery.flyertalk.com/townhall/scripts/viewnews.php?category=3&id=1095254712) says that "TalkBoard (TB) is a User Advisory Council consisting of members of the community whose purpose is to provide input regarding FlyerTalk feature requests, action requests that fall outside the scope of already-established policies and procedures, and general user issues as may be directed to them by the FlyerTalk member population and the Flyer Talk host."

Certainly moderation policies (as opposed to day-to-day overseeing of moderator's actions) are of concern to the general user.

TalkBoard, in fact, has taken certain decisions which impact on moderation policy:

** It voted that "Recognizing the need for consistent standards and that moderators aren't always best positioned to parse the value of any particular pitch, effective immediately all charitable solicitation must be submitted to and approved by Randy Petersen or his designee before being posted on Flyertalk. Any other charitable solicitation is a violation of Flyertalk Rules & Guidelines."

**It voted that "On 5 May 2005, the TalkBoard recommend that Randy bring back the signature lines...without specific topic prohibitions, but rather a strongly worded message to the membership that controversial or offensive signature lines will be removed at his discretion."

(This put the question of what signatures are permissible in Randy's hands, not those of the moderators.)

**Quite recently it voted that "That no candidate will have disciplinary action taken against them by any other candidate who is an active moderator."

TalkBoard does not oversee moderation. Randy does that. TalkBoard is responsible for approving the TOS and for policy questions -- and moderation policies are no exception.

Therefore, FlyerTalkers should be allowed to make suggestions concerning moderation policies in the TalkBoard Topics Forum.

Let's never lose track of one very important fact: It is the general membership which gives FlyerTalk its value.

If TalkBoard were to disappear, FlyerTalk would continue.

If moderation were to be ended, FlyerTalk would continue.

If Randy were to close this site completely, there is a very good possibility that someone else would start one and a reborn FlyerTalk would arise.

But without the membership, there is no FlyerTalk. Its concerns can not be dismissed out of hand or be forbidden to be discussed.

Jenbel, here is a link to the TOS, (http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php) please show me where it says that moderation is off limits to the TalkBoard. We have been told by Randy that moderation is not in TB's remit. Both current members of TB standing for re-election have confirmed that remains the practice, as it was in your day also. Why do you believe that your interpretation is correct - that magically, just because you say so, TB could take control of moderation, when we've frequently and often been told they can't? Are you sure you aren't misleading the electorate? Are we going to have another openness situation, where much is promised, but nothing much actually happens? Your examples are pretty tenuous really and nibble at the edges of moderator policy, where it interfaces with other aspects of the board running which are within TB remit. For example - the sigs - my understanding was that mods didn't want to police those, as they were considered far too subjective to be able to get any consistency on. Or at least that's what some of the mods themselves said in discussion about it!

It's deeply disappointing, that, come TB election season, the favourite sport seems to be suggesting that moderators are running out of control and that somehow more control needs to be exercised over them - particularly since the mods have no right of reply or ablity to respond to such allegations.

Fortunately, that picture is not one I recognise from my experience of using FT. Maybe I'm lucky, or law-abiding, but I've never seen a moderator acting capriciously, or for anything other than what they think is in the best interests of FT. And as a member of FT, I have to go and pack for the London do, where we have nearly 200 members of FT meeting together. I'm very well aware of the importance of the members - if I thought they were unimportant, I don't think I'd have put quite as much time, effort and resources into this mammoth organisational challenge as I have - and I've got the new grey hair to prove it! :D

The TOS prohibits peronal attacks upon moderators (and I agree with that).

Just as a point of clarification, the TOS prohibits personal attacks on ANY FT member (not just a single class of FT member like moderators or TalkBoard members).

Therefore, what you basically have is moderators having decided, on their own and without a TOS prohibition or TalkBoard approval, that there can be no discussion of moderation policies on TalkBoard Topics.

I believe that Randy, not the moderators, put this rule in place - I'd need to go back and search a number of old threads (including ORP which is off line right now), but having been a moderator for a number of years, I do not recall this being something the mods themselves decided but rather a policy handed down to us by Randy. (i.e. "Thou shalt not discuss moderation decisions on the forums.")

Believe me, there have been many times that I *do* wish that we could openly discuss a moderation decision, especially when what we have done has cleaned up a huge posting mess so that general members can no longer see what the member iin question did to earn the privilege of being moderated in the first place. Since we cannot discuss, when said member then goes and complains that they were unfairly censored (or censured), we cannot present the evidence to the contrary.

On the surface, I *do* agree with Randy's decision to not let the forums dissolve into heavy discussion about why certain moderation decisions took place - it detracts from the discussion of travel and miles (i.e. why we are here and why this board exists) and it also violates the TOS in potentially allowing personal attacks on a member (since I will say that a good number of moderation decisions that *I've* been involved in have involved this part of the TOS and by showing reason, we'd be posting that all over again rather than preventing it).

I know Randy reads these threads - as Jenbel suggests, this often becomes an election issue when it very well may (and I say "may" because while the moderators have been told that moderation is off-limits to TalkBoard, its suggested by former TalkBoard member Dovster that this is NOT the case) NOT be a relevent point - and so I hope that Randy might weigh in authoritatively on this issue so that members are not mislead in their voting to believe that electing individuals to TalkBoard can change practices/policies that Randy has put in place and upheld over time.

And if our collective assumption as moderators is incorrect and TalkBoard indeed has some ability to take up moderation as an issue, I think many of us would be interested as well as it certainly changes the job description of TalkBoard as I know at least a few candidates understood it.

To be clear, Randy has said many times that he considers himself to be the protector of the moderators. He does not want TalkBoard supervising the moderators nor having them fall under TalkBoard's authority.

I am not 100% happy with that (although to a great degree I am) but that does not impact on TalkBoard's authority to set policies by which moderators must work.

TechGirl, you said it yourself: "The moderators (TalkTeam) aren't there to create the structure but to make sure that it is enforced according to the Constitution (Terms of Service) and in line with what the TalkBoard intended. Whereas the moderators should act in accordance with previously decided policies and procedures - the TalkBoard and House of Miles both decide when those policies and procedures should change."

I am saying nothing more than you are. TalkBoard should set the policies, moderators should enforce them.

Obviously, if TalkBoard is going to set these policies than ordinary FlyerTalk members should be free to make suggestions to TalkBoard -- and that should be allowed on TalkBoard Topics.

Your examples are pretty tenuous really and nibble at the edges of moderator policy, where it interfaces with other aspects of the board running which are within TB remit. For example - the sigs - my understanding was that mods didn't want to police those, as they were considered far too subjective to be able to get any consistency on. Or at least that's what some of the mods themselves said in discussion about it!


Jenbel, I don't know what access you do or don't have to moderator discussions (which are supposed to be kept secret but, as we all know, often are not). I do not know what they discussed about signatures. I do know what was discussed in TalkBoard.

I hereby authorize either WHarvey or Spiff to read what I find in the debate on the private forum and to repost it here to confirm whether or not I am telling the truth.

I was the first to say that only Randy should be able to rule on signatures. I said that moderators should refer questionable ones to him.

I pointed out that signatures remain the same no matter what forum you are posting in and it would be a ridiculous situation if someone were to post in ten forums, find no objection from their moderators, and then get suspended because the identical signature appeared in an 11th forum where the moderator did not like it.

Did most moderators feel the same way? I don't know. I would hope so, but it was not a particular concern to me. The majority of TalkBoard did agree with that and thus it was passed.

I was the first to say that only Randy should be able to rule on signatures. I said that moderators should refer questionable ones to him.

I pointed out that signatures remain the same no matter what forum you are posting in and it would be a ridiculous situation if someone were to post in ten forums, find no objection from their moderators, and then get suspended because the identical signature appeared in an 11th forum where the moderator did not like it.

Did most moderators feel the same way? I don't know. I would hope so, but it was not a particular concern to me. The majority of TalkBoard did agree with that and thus it was passed.

The rule on signatures is that if a signature violates the TOS and its posted in our forum, we are to send the user an email letting them know that the signature violates the TOS and needs to be changed. If it is not changed, we refer the matter to the Senior Moderator team to review and they take action. So the scenario that you describe above should never take place....

Jenbel, I don't know what access you do or don't have to moderator discussions (which are supposed to be kept secret but, as we all know, often are not). I do not know what they discussed about signatures. I do know what was discussed in TalkBoard. I'm referring to the discussions which occurred around that time in public in ORP, where IIRC some mods said they didn't want to be responsible for checking signatures as well, as it would be even more reliant on subjective rather than objective opinion than a lot of the calls they were making on the board. I'm not sure if those discussions would predate or not the TB discussions, but I do recall the point, because at the time, it struck me as being entirely too sensible, but not one I'd considered before the mods themselves pointed it out. I think this may have been before moderation became strictly non-discussable, and people would frequently go complaining into ORP about specific boards and what was supposedly going on in there (which was, ultimately, one of the reasons for it going off-limits), hence some mods desire not to have another obviously contentious issue to be picked over in ORP. So I'm afraid I'm not demonstrating some hidden knowledge of secret discussions I should not be privy to, just a good memory for detail :o

Of course, I could even have my timeline wrong, and this could have even come from an earlier discussion on signatures. It certainly was from a while back.

Moderators are helping to maintain FlyerTalks communications on a daily level, that TalkBoard members are there to give a guiding hand on a global level that is looking towards the longterm. I do not think the two should be a odds, they are working towards the same goals through different avenues.

I feel that Moderators are more significant on the individuals level, and that TalkBoard members are mode significant on the grand scale of FlyerTalk as a whole.