TalkBoard Elections/07 - Question 4: Purview Over Policies of Moderation

This question submitted by member ElmhurstNick:
Randy has stated on multiple occasions over time that the TB does not and will not have purview over policies of moderation. Yet each year, candidates insist on building campaign themes around changing moderation or suspension policies! Why do you think candidates take this approach?

This is an excellent question, and I am happy that you asked since it can hopefully dispel the promises that some people are making. I really have absolutely no clue why some are doing this. I could wager to guess that maybe certain candidates want to make (unrealistic) campaign promises in order to get elected on something that is a complete non-issue, IMO. As I stated in a previous thread, I think the mods here do an excellent job, and if/when they make mistakes, they don't need TalkBoard telling them what to do or stepping on their toes.

TalkBoard is responsible for the Terms of Service that moderators enforce. More specific terms of service will reduce disagreements and help everyone operate from a common understanding. The less interpretation that the Terms of Service require, the better it is for everyone.

There has always been a clear line of separation between TalkBoard and the Moderator corps.

In a meeting I attended today, someone made a comparison that I think explained it in terms that are easy to understand.

In this example, FT was compared to the various branches of the US Federal Government.

Randy and the HOM’s would be the Executive Branch.

The Moderators would be the Judicial Branch.

And Talkboard would be the Legislative Branch.

Perhaps a bit simplistic but it’s as straightforward an explanation as I’ve yet seen.

Echoing Cholula, there's a definite separation between TalkBoard and the Mods. I do not expect to have specific impact on moderation practices as a member of TalkBoard. I would expect to participate in well-structured discussions with members of the community about where we should be heading, and then do my part to facilitate the needs of the members-at-large.

Randy has stated on multiple occasions over time that the TB does not and will not have purview over policies of moderation. Yet each year, candidates insist on building campaign themes around changing moderation or suspension policies! Why do you think candidates take this approach?

I am not certain why some candidates might take such an approach. It is definitely misleading in my opinion. Perhaps these candidates are simply unaware of exactly what role the TB serves -- it is not a Moderator Oversight Committee no matter how much of an emotional outcry they might make. I would hope that no one would be deliberately misrepresenting what they can do if elected ... merely so that they can be elected!

Basing one's campaign on spreading fear of the black helicopters is irrational and casts one's intentions into question. People would question if it is something personal like an emotional reaction to being on the receiving end of moderator actions like having a post deleted or being suspended. Just because I've had one of my posts deleted does not mean there's a moderator conspiracy; perhaps I should look in the mirror and consider why my post got deleted. The sky is not falling after all. @:-)

I'm not going to pile on--what's said has been said, and I agree in one form or another with most of what's been written.

I think one of the shortcomings of the current talkboard makeup and with some of this year's candidates is the tendency to treat one's membership on the Talkboard as an excuse to promote one's personal agenda about what Flyertalk should be. In this case, trying to make the Talkboard have moderator oversight is just another shining example.

I don't believe Randy intends for Flyertalk to be ruled by the tyranny of the majority (while I don't believe that the small percentage of members run on the "expand the talkboard to include moderation purview" represent a majority, it could hypothetically happen). He and the Internet Brands folks are not going to alter the Terms of Service to allow swearing, regular insults against other members, and off-topic posts even if the member-elected Talkboard were to vote to allow such. As an ancillary thing, I'd personally love to see Randy and the Internet Brands folks detailing exactly what they believe the Talkboard should be (a refresher of sorts) so that the membership might keep that in mind while reading candidates platforms and what is written in this forum. It would be, I believe, enlightening, especially in threads like this one.

I also believe that Randy was quite deliberate in making the Talkboard member-elected and the Moderators "management chosen." That system has worked well for many years and allowed FT to grow into the premier bulletin board for points and miles. As I mention in my platform--why mess with what works?

I sometimes think of FlyerTalk as a wonderful Theme Resort (of course, air travel is the theme), run by a most generous and benevolent dictator. We all love to go visit the resort, hang out, share, and learn ways to make our travel more fun, comfortable and rewarding. Some of us have been coming to the resort regularly since it opened, and some have just discovered it. Over 150,000 people have visited the resort over the years, but there is a much smaller core group who keep coming back time and time again, and it is our small core group which created the distinctive style that makes this resort so desirable and unique.

Many in our smaller core group have gotten to know one another quite well. We even leave the resort and travel together, learning about one another's lives and visiting one another's homes. We have become real friends--sharing the joys of marriage, child birth, and new jobs, along with the sorrow of divorce, loss of employment, illness, and even death. We are a real community in every sense of the word.

As much as we know and like one another, however, we are all different people coming from different places all around the world, and even staying in different rooms while we are at the resort, looking out of different windows, and participating in different activities. As a result each of us understands only part of the whole resort, and that part only from his or her own point of view.

Now, our resort is facing something of a crisis. Our benevolet dictator has sold the resort and, in a few years down the road, he will no longer be around to benevolently dictate. We have no idea how the new owners intend to run the resort and we must prepare ourselves, and our resort, to protect its exceptional ambiance for the future.

The question is, how do we go about doing that?

The view from my window:

I think that we should all work together to the very best of our ability to make certain that the resort runs so smoothly by itself that the new owners will be delighted to just let it continue to run itself. In order to make that happen we all have to set aside our own personal desires and prejudices and learn how to listen to, and learn from, one another to help us all understand as many aspects of the resort management as we possibly can. We need to analyze where we are, determine where we need to be, and figure out a way to get there.

Cholua reports that at the recent moderator's meeting, a moderator made the the following analogy of the current management of FlyerTalk:

"In this example, FT was compared to the various branches of the US Federal Government.

Randy and the HOM’s would be the Executive Branch.

The Moderators would be the Judicial Branch.

And Talkboard would be the Legislative Branch."

I think we can all agree that in any form of democratic government, there needs a clear division of who makes the rules, who enforces the rules, and who reviews the enforcement. We all know Lord Action's famous axiom--"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely".

At present (while we are still a benevolent dictatorship) in truth and in fact, our power structure breaks out like this:

A. For the most part, Randy and the moderators make the rules. It was edfying to see that the TalkBoard did make a couple of operational rules in the past year.
B. Randy and the moderators enforce the rules.
C. Randy alone reviews enforcement when it involves suspension or bans.

It is clear that we are going to have some big holes in the operation when Randy's 3.5 years are up.

I see us less like the Federal government and more like a small independent city, maybe Fairbanks, that needs to learn to govern itself peacfully and cooperatively.

Here is my first draft of a plan:

A. Talkboard makes the rules--town council.
B. Moderators enforce the rules--police.
C. Review Board reviews all suspensions and bans--judge and jury.

Naturally each of these branches will need to be totally separate from one another--supporting and enriching one another, but separate entities with no crossover membership.

Some might think that 3.5 is a long way a way and that we can wait to think about this later, but stop and consider now. How long will it take all TalkBoard members and Randy to come together with a plan? A year at best? Then after we have a plan that makes us all happy, how long will it take to make it operational? Another year at best? Then, IMO, we will need another whole year of practice under whatever structure we build while Randy is still at the helm, in order to make the transition so smooth that IB gives us a congratulatory thumbs-up and tells us to continue on. That takes up right up to the big party we throw for Randy when he finally passes on the baton.

So that's my plan. Many of you may not agree and I hope that those of you who don't will put forth your own plans so that I can learn more from them. When we put all of our good ideas into the pot, we will come up with the most perfect soup.

Tell us about the view from your window.

Just to throw my 2 cents through the window ....

Moderators need to remain independent from TalkBoard. However, whenever a rule in the TOS is highlighted as open to interpretation, TB should review the rule with the aim to clarify. As has been said by nsx, the less room for interpretation, the less moderator's actions will be called into question.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

Unless and until Randy and/or the IB folks change their stance--that being the Talkboard has no purview over moderation, it's pointless to talk about what the Talkboard may or may not do in that regard. Again--it's akin to having candidates for city counsel discussing how to implement the job of the elected Sheriff--a rather meaningless exercise, no?

(the following keeps in mind that I have specifically said that I will not mess with what works in my campaign platform)

Neither Randy nor Internet Brands has indicated that they have asked for the aforementioned policy to change. I therefore am personally not arrogant enough to believe that my personal input is needed in a preemptive fashion, much less under the backdrop of running for Talkboard to do it--when, as has been said before, it's specifically not the Talkboard's purview.

Moreover, even when Randy's term is up, I don't personally see Internet Brands turning the "keys to the moderation kingdom" over to the Talkboard I await any rational explanation to the contrary. As a moderator, I've heard nothing that indicates that it will ever happen. As an additional (and more personal) aside, I'm not willing to sit across from Randy the next time I happen to lift a glass of Tequila with him and, in effect, tell him that I'm already planning to run/climb/walk over his dead carcass as it relates to managing FT. It strikes me as poor form, and I won't do it (unless he asks--see below).

If asked to consider such a situation while on the Talkboard, I'd immediately turn to the membership for input. I'm not going to assume that in a situation I've been specifically told the position won't deal with (talkboard discussing moderation) that I'd have the least little bit of idea of what the membership actually wants--and neither should anyone else.

Two thoughts:

First, the non cynical answer: These topics are very near and dear to candidates hearts and they want to facilitate change in these areas.

Second, the cynical answer: I think moderation and suspensions are ways to get the members riled up. Like negative campaigning in real life, its a way a way to get generate controversy and get votes.

My stance is that I don't think the Talkboard should have oversight of moderation or suspensions. I do think the Talkboard should have oversight of improvement of member communication of the Board overall (including which moderators are (or aren't) doing a good job).

While I agree that Randy has made it as clear as ozone that the TB does not have purview over moderation or moderation policies, I am disappointed that there is not better communication and a more formalized relationship between the TB and the moderators. Perhaps this is because so many of the current TB members ARE moderators.

To my mind, there ought to be FAR better communication and a more formal relationship in place. I think the TB ought not wait around to be asked to attend the moderator-only do's. I think they ought to ask to be invited and participate. After all, how can the TB know what is working and not working in terms of their responsibilities if they are not interacting with the folks who are making daily judgment calls in the various forums.

I think the S.P.A.M. dust-up this year is a perfect example of what happens when this issue is left to fester. A forum, ANY forum can become NOT what the TB intended, but whatever a moderator will allow. That being the case, the TB could create a forum meant to talk about travel with furniture but if the appointed moderator allows free talk about travel with ottomans but strictly enforces the TOS with regard to travel with sofas, well, you've got the will of the TB subverted by the mod. A more common occurrence, though, is that a lenient moderator allows a forum to go and stay off topic and become something it is not meant (by the TB) to be. This was the case with S.P.A.M. It was created to talk about alternate points and mile currencies. But lax moderation allowed it to become about free samples of laundry detergent without the TB ever actually taking this decision.

So while there is no direct purview, clearly the duties of TB and the duties of moderators are RELATED.

I believe that to perform their duties with due diligence, TB members should be granted access to the moderator forums and discussions and should ask to be invited to the moderator-only Dos where moderator guidelines, best practices and training are developed. This way TB members can track for themselves the implementation of the decisions that they are making by the moderators and adjust forums and forum definitions as necessary.

And to close the loop, TB members should be reporting back to the average poster about this process.

If I am elected to the TB, I guaranfreakingtee you that I'd endeavor to do this.

I don't see any justification for the adversarial attitude some of the candidates have toward FT's moderators. Moderators are people, and different people do the same job differently. You can't please all the people all the time. These are facts of life, on FT as well as in real life.

Making the Terms of Service more specific will reduce the incidence of arguments about moderation, but someone who is looking hard enough for an excuse to complain will still be able to find it.

I believe some candidates truly have the best interests of FlyerTalk and FTers in mind and want to change FT to make it the best it can be. They may see moderation to need fine-tuning. TalkBoard shapes the policies that moderators must enforce. So while TB does not influence how moderation is enforced they do influence WHAT is enforced by moderators.

Sadly, a few select candidates have made moderation and moderators a prime target. They've fought against moderation and sought to undermine moderation and moderators since FT broadened mod efforts.

More than any specific moderator or moderation action, they are offended by the overall concept of moderators and are hyperfocused on that issue at the expense of all other concerns. I would implore voters to look at all candidates' responses and deeply consider how well such myopy on one issue will impact those candidates' ability to represent them and their wants and needs at large.

I think it is really interesting to compare the responses to this question from candidates who are moderators against the responses from candidates are not moderators.

If, like me, you see a little bit of a disconnect then do you, like me, wonder whether there really are two FTs...the FT world of posters who happen to be moderators and the FT world of posters who are just posters?

I mean, if I were a moderator maybe I'd feel like there were no problems with moderation whatsoever either...know what I mean? One thing I would commit to do as a TB member is to examining the potential disconnect between moderator-posters and non-moderator posters and to the extent it exists breaking it down.

As noted above, I'd do this by inserting myself into the moderator process and reporting back to posters at large.

I don't see any justification for the adversarial attitude some of the candidates have toward FT's moderators. Moderators are people

It seems that in the eyes of some, moderators are not people.

I think it is really interesting to compare the responses to this question from candidates who are moderators against the responses from candidates are not moderators.

If, like me, you see a little bit of a disconnect then do you, like me, wonder whether there really are two FTs...the FT world of posters who happen to be moderators and the FT world of posters who are just posters?

I mean, if I were a moderator maybe I'd feel like there were no problems with moderation whatsoever either...know what I mean? One thing I would commit to do as a TB member is to examining the potential disconnect between moderator-posters and non-moderator posters and to the extent it exists breaking it down.

As noted above, I'd do this by inserting myself into the moderator process and reporting back to posters at large.

I don't feel any differently than I did before I volunteered as a moderator. In fact, I volunteered BECAUSE I feel as I do regarding Flyertalk. I would love to see a show of hands of how many FTers see a disconnect between FTers who volunteer as moderators and FTers who do not.

I'm not sure why you've been masked from several forums as you state. If those reasons are due to moderation issues, I can understand why you might have issues with the process. Surely, your experience is not typical. How many FTers are masked from fora? I can't imagine it's over twenty, much less fifty. Out of the over one hundred thousand FlyerTalk members, that is assuredly an outlier experience.

Basing policy on outlier events is not good practice for policymaking. Instead, it is better to handle such outlier cases individually such that they receive the specific attention permitting the best resolution possible given the assuredly unique circumstances. As you say you've been masked from several forums, perhaps that is indeed what occurred in your case. Are you saying FlyerTalk should work differently and we should base policy upon your experience?

While I am a candidate, let me ask a question as well ...

If you are currently a moderator, do you believe that being moderator can be combined with being a TB member? Would you give up your moderator position if you were elected?

I strongly believe in the separation of power, because it both relieves people from the accusations and for the fact that it allows unbiased "law" making.

To give you an example, I'm currently part of the discussion to change the rules for our condo association. At the present time, we have members authorising purchases as well as validating the accounting books. I strongly oppose this. There needs to be a clear separation of powers in my opinion, in order to guarantee transparency.

Cheers,

GenevaFlyer

I don't feel any differently than I did before I volunteered as a moderator. In fact, I volunteered BECAUSE I feel as I do regarding Flyertalk. I would love to see a show of hands of how many FTers see a disconnect between FTers who volunteer as moderators and FTers who do not.

I'm not sure why you've been masked from several forums as you state. If those reasons are due to moderation issues, I can understand why you might have issues with the process. Surely, your experience is not typical. How many FTers are masked from fora? I can't imagine it's over twenty, much less fifty. Out of the over one hundred thousand FlyerTalk members, that is assuredly an outlier experience.

Basing policy on outlier events is not good practice for policy making. Instead, it is better to handle such outlier cases individually such that they receive the specific attention permitting the best resolution possible given the assuredly unique circumstances. As you say you've been masked from several forums, perhaps that is indeed what occurred in your case. Are you saying FlyerTalk should work differently and we should base policy upon your experience?
Actually, my maskings were done by Randy himself, well outside of the standard moderation process but based in both cases on my pointing out things about the moderation process that made no sense to this non-moderator.

I agree that basing policy on outlier events is bad practice. But that is not what I am doing or even suggesting. What I am suggesting is that everyone needs to realize that they come from their own perspective and so therefore not assert that their perspective is the only right one.

What I AM suggesting is that basing policy on only one perspective (that of a forum moderator or of moderators in general) is bad practice.

Yet that appears to be where FT is headed.

As noted above, I'd do this by inserting myself into the moderator process and reporting back to posters at large.

My friend and colleague (and soon to be neighbor!) from the Commonwealth of Virginia poses an interesting point here, but will he suffer a question?

How, given that Randy/IB have said that the TB does not have purview over such things, do you figure to insert yourself into the process? Would you not be better served by simply applying to become a moderator? Or lobbying Randy (which does not take a Talkboard seat) directly? How do you plan to go about doing something which a handful of prior/current Talkboard members have failed at? And that The Man (tm) does not seem to want?

Again--I can only equate this whole line of campaigning to running for school board making campaign promises about the district attorney's office (or even governor, if we take the Randy analogy to the logical conclusion).

If you have a super-secret plan to change Randy's mind on something, however, please do share! That could be useful information to all :D.

If you are currently a moderator, do you believe that being moderator can be combined with being a TB member? Would you give up your moderator position if you were elected?

I don't see a problem with serving as both a moderator and a member of TB. While I agree with separation of power in principle, neither of these groups hold any real power, nor does either group have any oversight over the operation of the other group.

I strongly believe in the separation of power, because it both relieves people from the accusations and for the fact that it allows unbiased "law" making.

Again, I agree in principle, but neither group here is law-making. I think, in general, people are mature enough to be able to keep the two roles separate and the fact that TB has no purview over moderation makes it easy.

As to whether it relieves people from accusations, in a previous TB election, I temporarily resigned as a moderator during the campaign so as to make things "more transparent". Instead, some other candidates spread rumours and openly posted thinly-veiled suggestions that I had been fired as a moderator by Randy Petersen.

I will only say that some FTers who are adversarial toward moderators are those who have had problems with following the TOS, to the point where their own records would make them ineligible to serve as moderators.

Cholua reports that the moderators state their view the current management of FlyerTalk as follows:

"In this example, FT was compared to the various branches of the US Federal Government.

Randy and the HOM’s would be the Executive Branch.

The Moderators would be the Judicial Branch.

And Talkboard would be the Legislative Branch."




Punki, as a matter of correction and clarification, I didn't say that FT moderators stated or even agreed with the above comparison to the federal government.

It was said by one individual in a meeting over the weekend. I liked the comparison and made note of it in my post #4 above.

My friend and colleague (and soon to be neighbor!) from the Commonwealth of Virginia poses an interesting point here, but will he suffer a question?

How, given that Randy/IB have said that the TB does not have purview over such things, do you figure to insert yourself into the process? Would you not be better served by simply applying to become a moderator? Or lobbying Randy (which does not take a Talkboard seat) directly? How do you plan to go about doing something which a handful of prior/current Talkboard members have failed at? And that The Man (tm) does not seem to want?

Again--I can only equate this whole line of campaigning to running for school board making campaign promises about the district attorney's office (or even governor, if we take the Randy analogy to the logical conclusion).

If you have a super-secret plan to change Randy's mind on something, however, please do share! That could be useful information to all :D.
Michael Moore style if need be, baby!

There is only so much room at the moderator table. So be it. I am campaigning for a seat on a user advisory council. If I am elected I will take as my mandate more openness and direct representation in any and all processes that affect posters including visiting the HoM, stopping by IB HQ, crashing Moderator-only Dos and having cocktails with as many moderators and non-moderators as possible so that I can be a conduit for as much open communication as possible remaining open to all perspectives. ^

If you are currently a moderator, do you believe that being moderator can be combined with being a TB member?

Yes. I believe that the majority of elected TB members over the years have been moderators. And, as has been mentioned, Randy has said that the Talkboard won't have moderation oversight or purview, so I don't really see a conflict brewing.

Would you give up your moderator position if you were elected?

No. If Randy (and I don't think he will) decides to change his mind on the Talkboard's purview regarding moderation, then I'd probably change my mind and resign as a moderator. Failing that, I'd keep on as a moderator.

I strongly believe in the separation of power, because it both relieves people from the accusations and for the fact that it allows unbiased "law" making.

Similar question to what I posed to kokonutz--since moderation is not within the Talkboard's purview, what "laws" would be "biased?"

Having a conflict assumes that one body has any sway over what the other might do. I'm pretty convinced that's not the case, and it's not the case by design (on Randy's part).

having cocktails with as many moderators and non-moderators as possible

Wait--I think we've found common ground!

I'm seriously considering adding this as a plank in my platform. :D

Actually, my maskings were done by Randy himself, well outside of the standard moderation process but based in both cases on my pointing out things about the moderation process that made no sense to this non-moderator.

I agree that basing policy on outlier events is bad practice. But that is not what I am doing or even suggesting. What I am suggesting is that everyone needs to realize that they come from their own perspective and so therefore not assert that their perspective is the only right one.

What I AM suggesting is that basing policy on only one perspective (that of a forum moderator or of moderators in general) is bad practice.

Yet that appears to be where FT is headed.

I think this is very sage advice. We all must understand that no issue is so simplistic as to have only one 'right' answer. Where I call into question your reasoning is the implication that moderators behave en bloc. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Opinions differ as much among those volunteering as moderators as any other FlyerTalker. By your token, I could make the statement that all Congress shares one perspective. This clearly is untrue.

FewMiles writes:

I will only say that some FTers who are adversarial toward moderators are those who have had problems with following the TOS, to the point where their own records would make them ineligible to serve as moderators

Now this poses an interesting question. What rule prohibits anyone from serving as a moderator? Who made that rule? Does the rule have to due with suspensions, as the above post implies? If suspensions are involved, what if the suspensions were issued in violation of the rules that the moderators have made for themselves, do they still count? What about those suspensions are overruled by Randy, do they still count?

There is apparently some confusion on the part of the candidates and the general membership, and even the moderators (based on the statement that Cholula made about the moderators analogy of the management of FlyerTalk), as to exactly who does what.

Moderator understanding:

Talkboard = Legislative
Moderators = Judicial
Randy = Executive

Real life:

Randy and Moderators = Legislative
Moderators = Policemen
Randy = Judicial
Talkboard = Housekeeping

My proposal:

Talkboard = Legislative
Moderators = Police
Review Board = Judicial

I would be thrilled if in the next two-year term we were able to move at least in the direction of having Talkboard=Legislative, but that could only work if there were no moderators on Talkboard, cause the police just can't make the laws.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear how each of you would propose that the duties of FlyerTalk be divided once Randy steps aside--I can't be the only one with a plan. ;)

If you are currently a moderator, do you believe that being moderator can be combined with being a TB member?

Having done both simultaneously over the last two years, I can say that it is indeed possible to handle both functions effectively.

I've got three hats sitting here on my desk....Flyertalk member, moderator and TalkBoard member....and I wear them individually as needed.

The job of being a moderator is a day-to-day, hands-on position that requires a fair amount of time depending on the number and type of forums being moderated.

The job of being a TalkBoard member is more laid-back and is quite different in that there really are no day-to-day functions. Rather it's a position that requires planning, consensus building, research, teamwork and debating skills if one is to be an effective TalkBoard member.

The two jobs are quite different IMO and, combined, do require a time commitment to FlyerTalk. But it's not an impossible amount of time and, at least in my experience, is quite doable.

Opinions differ as much among those volunteering as moderators as any other FlyerTalker. By your token, I could make the statement that all Congress shares one perspective. This clearly is untrue.Yet each and every moderator does have at the very least one thing in common: their perspective is that of a moderator.

I can't say how that perspective colors their view of FT and what FT is, is not, should be and should not be. But as a non-moderator member of the Talkboard I would like to explore that question to make sure that all perspectives are being represented and served.

Yet each and every moderator does have at the very least one thing in common: their perspective is that of a moderator.

I can't say how that perspective colors their view of FT and what FT is, is not, should be and should not be. But as a non-moderator member of the Talkboard I would like to explore that question to make sure that all perspectives are being represented and served.

But what is a moderator's perspective? My perspective will be different from any other moderator. Do all members of a race share the same perspective? Do all alcoholics have the same perspective? All members of a religion? You make reference to a unified singular perspective that is shared. Nothing could be further from the truth; we as individuals are all defined by so much more than volunteering as moderators for FlyerTalk. You've made reference elswhere over the years to being a lobbyist. Do all lobbyists share the same perspective? Is your perspective the same as that of a lobbyist for NAMBLA? For Greenpeace?

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear how each of you would propose that the duties of FlyerTalk be divided once Randy steps aside--I can't be the only one with a plan. ;)

Once again, I'm going to wait and see what Randy and/or the internet brands folks say before I climb over Randy's dead carcass to reach a decision that is not mine to make in the first place (talkboard member or otherwise).

I'm sure he'd like it if everyone extended him that courtesy. It seems rather morbid to be openly planning to replace the functions of a guy who has not even put a date or definite on his departure, much less using it as a lever for a campaign platform with no chance of implementation.

I don't believe the talkboard should have any oversight of moderation.

I just don't buy the argument that moderators have an inherently different view of what's better for FT than other members have. Moderators send and receive more PMs with other members, and we can see the messy kitchen in addition to the pot luck meal served at the table, but the meal (the members' forums) is the whole point of FT.

One other thing. What moderators can see is a slight superset of what other members see. How exactly is this additional knowledge detrimental to TalkBoard? That can only be the case if moderators are (or should be) the natural adversaries of the TalkBoard. That's hogwash.

We are all in this together, with the same goal: to make FT the best it can be for the members. If it takes me 25 PMs to cure someone of making a nuisance of himself and help him become a friend and a valuable contributor instead, how does that change my perspective of what's best for FT? It doesn't, other than to make me think about how to make this education process easier for everyone affected.

Just out of curiosity, I would like to hear how each of you would propose that the duties of FlyerTalk be divided once Randy steps aside--I can't be the only one with a plan. ;)

Randy has already semi-privately laid out his plans for the next 3 ½ years and beyond and I was privileged enough to hear those plans.

I'm not speaking here for Randy and he can make those plans known on FT if and when he so desires.

Let me just suggest that, short of his getting hit by the proverbial beer truck, we shouldn't have to worry about a Randyless FT anytime soon. :)

Randy has already semi-privately laid out his plans for the next 3 ½ years and beyond and I was privileged enough to hear those plans.

I'm not speaking here for Randy and he can make those plans known on FT if and when he so desires.

Let me just suggest that, short of his getting hit by the proverbial beer truck, we shouldn't have to worry about a Randyless FT anytime soon. :)Was that to moderators?

Someone tell me again how moderators are just like all other posters? :rolleyes:

But what is a moderator's perspective? My perspective will be different from any other moderator. Do all members of a race share the same perspective? Do all alcoholics have the same perspective? All members of a religion? You make reference to a unified singular perspective that is shared. Nothing could be further from the truth; we as individuals are all defined by so much more than volunteering as moderators for FlyerTalk. You've made reference elswhere over the years to being a lobbyist. Do all lobbyists share the same perspective? Is your perspective the same as that of a lobbyist for NAMBLA? For Greenpeace?Sorry if I am being a thread-hog but I just wanted to respond to this.

No, all lobbyists do not have the same perspective. BUT lobbyists DO all view government in a different way than people who are not lobbyists. We see how the sausage is made and it colors how we view the sausage. That is neither a good nor a bad thing, but I certainly don't want all of Congress to be populated by lobbyists!!!!

Your point that people who have something in common can be very different is not lost on me. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how hard I try I can never relate to the perspective of a gay man. It's just not my paradigm. Same thing with moderators. Moderators may hold infinite perspectives on things, but they are all from the perspective of moderators.

I'll clarify for the good of all. This was not an agenda item for the recent Moderator Meeting if that helps.

At the end of the day, i made myself open to any and all questions from those attending. An open session like so many similar types of meetings, not just moderators. Perhaps you've even attended some conference somewhere where they set aside an open session for questions.

A question was asked of me about my involvement with FlyerTalk after the conditions of the Internet Brands agreement are met 3 1/2 years from now (which by the way, is a full 4 more election periods for TalkBoard members). I answered it as i would any member asking me that question since it really can't have but a single answer.

Just like all posters? Well, if you were to review threads in ORP from members, you would notice that no single member has asked me that question. You of course, have had that ability, so has Punki, but neither bothered to ask. So when someone does bother to ask it and it is also an interest of yours, does it really matter that a Moderator asked it? Truly, if you had asked it before they had asked the question, you would have gotten the same answer as they did since it was live, non-scripted and since not on any agenda, flowed from whatever thoughts i might have had on the topic in real time.

Anyway, i hope the facts that no member has asked that question of me helps explain this. If you think it pertinent, just ask the question and I'll answer it, live or online.

Was that to moderators?

Someone tell me again how moderators are just like all other posters? :rolleyes:

Thank you, Randy. I for one am thrilled that there is a plan in the works. I was very worried about this issue which is what prompted my e-mail to you on October 28, which read in part as follows:

"One of my most serious concerns is what will happen to people who are "Banned" when you are no longer around to reinstate them? "

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but my understanding of your answer was that it wouldn't be an issue for 3.5 years, and that, honestly, made me even more concerned. I am having a hard time envisioning the creation, and implementation of such a plan, let alone tweaking it to operate smoothly in less than 3.5 years. I can't imagine that the moderators are thrilled when you override their suspensions and it will be ten times harder for them when that decision comes from another body. That will take some serious preparation.

In order to be perfectly clear, however, about both my question and your answer, I did just ask the question again in ORP.

There has always been a clear line of separation between TalkBoard and the Moderator corps.

In a meeting I attended today, someone made a comparison that I think explained it in terms that are easy to understand.

In this example, FT was compared to the various branches of the US Federal Government.

Randy and the HOM’s would be the Executive Branch.

The Moderators would be the Judicial Branch.

And Talkboard would be the Legislative Branch.

Perhaps a bit simplistic but it’s as straightforward an explanation as I’ve yet seen.

This would be a great analogy, except one can't serve in Congress and on the Supreme Court at the same time.

I think one should run on whatever platform they want. Voters can decide whether or not the platform is reasonable and achievable.

You bring up an excellent point, Cholula, what if Randy were hit by the proverbial beer truck?

One of the first things that one has to grasp as a parent and/or a business owner is that there is nothing at all morbid about making a clear plan to cover those for whom you are responsible, in the event you do happen to meet up with a Coors truck.

You bring up an excellent point, Cholula, what if Randy were hit by the proverbial beer truck?

Please don't throw Randy under the bus. ;)

The plain fact is that we're all replaceable in all our roles, ESPECIALLY our roles on FT. That includes Randy. FT might be a little different, but probably a lot less different than you fear. And Randy must agree or he wouldn't have sold FT to Internet Brands.

There's really only one thing that could seriously disrupt the future of FT, and that is pointless political bickering. I've seen it several times with enthusiast groups. High-strung high achievers with outsize egos rub each other the wrong way, which is particularly easy to do by email or on a forum, and pretty soon the sparks are flying. Nobody remembers how it started, but these people only know how to escalate the fight. The group splits, then one part fails or they both fail.

I'm confident we can avoid this, because most of the moderators and TalkBoard members are calm and unassuming people who know how to be diplomatic.

I urge all voters to look at the platforms and the posts here and choose someone who is not in the high-strung category, even though some high-strung members are the most passionate about FT and are valuable contributors.

I trust that you are correct, nsx, and that there is indeed a plan, designed to retain the flavor of our wonderful community.

You bring up an excellent point, Cholula, what if Randy were hit by the proverbial beer truck?

Have you asked him?

Have you asked him?

I know if I was hit by a beer truck, I would hope it contained Fat Tire or at least one of the more palatable mass-marketed brews.

I love FT, but at the end of the day, IJAFIBB. If Randy says he's going to be around 3.5 years, well, that's a long, long time IMO -- let's worry about that 3 years from now.

This would be a great analogy, except one can't serve in Congress and on the Supreme Court at the same time.


But that's the great thing about cyberspace!

One can do and be almost anything s/he can imagine.

And it happens much faster and easier up here than when we are rooted to terra firma.

I love FT, but at the end of the day, IJAFIBB. If Randy says he's going to be around 3.5 years, well, that's a long, long time IMO -- let's worry about that 3 years from now.

Oh, I agree.

Or, we could assume that Randy, being a somewhat smart guy, may already have a plan in place, and that by extension, neither you, I, or any other Talkboard candidate could possibly have a better idea about what the man is going to do than the man himself.

I'm amazed, above and beyond the timeframe in question, that people are planning for Randy's demise without having ask Randy if he himself has planned for his demise.

Wanton hubris, I say.

Oh, I agree.

Or, we could assume that Randy, being a somewhat smart guy, may already have a plan in place, and that by extension, neither you, I, or any other Talkboard candidate could possibly have a better idea about what the man is going to do than the man himself.

I'm amazed, above and beyond the timeframe in question, that people are planning for Randy's demise without having ask Randy if he himself has planned for his demise.

Wanton hubris, I say.


...especially given that many making the most noise may not be on TalkBoard by then even if elected this cycle. Three years is at leat three elections from now!

This question submitted by member ElmhurstNick:
Randy has stated on multiple occasions over time that the TB does not and will not have purview over policies of moderation. Yet each year, candidates insist on building campaign themes around changing moderation or suspension policies! Why do you think candidates take this approach?

I had to go back to page 1 to remind myself - What is the question?

My answer is simply if we do not have purview over "policies of moderation" then I don't need to address the issue. Why do candidates build campaigns around the issue? I didn't know this occurred in the past as a significant campaign issue.

I had several years of past experience in the early 1990s working with bylaws, rules, and resolutions for the California Teachers Association and National Education Association as a member of organizational policy-making boards. I have a graduate degree in labor relations. It sounds like this is an issue that would benefit from clearly defined guidelines delineating roles within the organization.

FlyerTalk is also a for-profit business, so if we are told that an issue is not in our domain of influence, then "that is what it is".

Oh, I agree.

Or, we could assume that Randy, being a somewhat smart guy, may already have a plan in place, and that by extension, neither you, I, or any other Talkboard candidate could possibly have a better idea about what the man is going to do than the man himself.

I'm amazed, above and beyond the timeframe in question, that people are planning for Randy's demise without having ask Randy if he himself has planned for his demise.

Wanton hubris, I say.

We couldn't agree more. Randy owes us nothing and has given us quite a bit. Whatever he plans on doing, I'll wish him well when the time comes.

I am a high school sports official part time and I have contracts for games in 2010. I don't understand why people plan so far in advance. I could be dead or unable to officiate by then. And yet people want to be able to solidify the future....which is so very fluid....

It's impossible to legislate moderation since it's impossible to come up with rules that will apply to each situation. With the TOS, it gives guidelines for the moderators and a basis for their decisions. The key is in the selection process to find appropriate moderators and once selected to make sure that the TOS are generally kept.

This question submitted by member ElmhurstNick:
Randy has stated on multiple occasions over time that the TB does not and will not have purview over policies of moderation. Yet each year, candidates insist on building campaign themes around changing moderation or suspension policies! Why do you think candidates take this approach?

Hi
Well I have already made my views known about moderation, as somene who has taken part in a few elections on TB I must say that this issue of moderation always comes into play.

Like I keep on saying each person will view moderation differantly, we will never ever agree on what we all read or the actions of the moderators.

I do hope that we can move away from this constant theme of moderators and talk about other things during the elections.

regards

This question submitted by member ElmhurstNick: Why do you think candidates take this approach?

I think some candidates may take this approach because they or the FlyerTalk community may not know the difference between the role of the moderators and the TalkBoard.

Ultimately, the Board needs to ensure great dialog and debate happens throughout the forums. I don't believe in over-moderation and over-legislating of what can or can't be written about. Rather than offer up more rules and procedures for moderators to follow, I believe the Board should do what it can to work with the moderators to ensure consistency.

I think some candidates may take this approach because they or the FlyerTalk community may not know the difference between the role of the moderators and the TalkBoard.

Ultimately, the Board needs to ensure great dialog and debate happens throughout the forums. I don't believe in over-moderation and over-legislating of what can or can't be written about. Rather than offer up more rules and procedures for moderators to follow, I believe the Board should do what it can to work with the moderators to ensure consistency.I think part of the TB's job is clearly defining their intentions to moderators: http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8711959&postcount=90

ClueByFour writes:

I'm amazed, above and beyond the timeframe in question, that people are planning for Randy's demise without having ask Randy if he himself has planned for his demise.

Actually, I have asked, twice. Once in a private e-mail and once here:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=753955

Still awaiting an answer.

I think that everyone who has a position of responsibility should make plans for their own demise or retirement or just moving on to do something else.

It will take at least three years to put together a real plan, figure out how it will work and then implement it. I may be the only one who sees this and, if that is the case, no one will vote for me and I can just go back to flying and playing all around the world.

Hunki is even now encouraging me to hurry up and get ready so we can run downstairs and catch our ride to AKL for our flight to SYD. Sorry I didn't get a chance to address all of the questions, but travel comes first. :D

ClueByFour writes:



Actually, I have asked, twice. Once in a private e-mail and once here:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=753955

Still awaiting an answer.

Yeah, but you did it after starting a campaign assuming that you (or anyone else) either was asked and/or needed to plan for it.

And perhaps there is a reason that you are still awaiting an answer: you don't need to be privy to the answer. Or Randy does not feel you need to know. Or maybe Internet Brands wants to keep the wraps on it. Or maybe Randy won't really be "gone" in 3.5 years.

You don't know, but that did not stop you from "starting to plan." I think we know why--more on that in a second.

I think that everyone who has a position of responsibility should make plans for their own demise or retirement or just moving on to do something else.

It will take at least three years to put together a real plan, figure out how it will work and then implement it. I may be the only one who sees this and, if that is the case, no one will vote for me and I can just go back to flying and playing all around the world.

You are the only one who made the assumption that Randy does not already have a plan in place. You are the only one who has assumed that Randy (or Internet Brands) would ask the Talkboard for input, much less be a part of whatever the solution is. You are the only one who is automatically assuming that Randy will be out in exactly 3.5 years--I understand that's not necessarily what either Randy and/or Internet Brands think, but you chose not to ask either until after the campaign began.

Question: why don't you trust the man who built Flyertalk from the ground on up to the wonderful place it is today to plan for his own succession? Can we actually assume it has nothing to do with the suspension he mentions above?

Because you might understand why the average reader might be able to find more than a passing connection between the two. Unrequested planning for a plan to succeed the man who issued one a lifetime suspension strikes me as more a bit transparent.....

Actually, Clue you are, once again, quite wrong. I asked the question when I presented my platform to Randy, before I decided to run for TalkBoard.

While the vast majority of FlyerTalk moderation is above board and well intended, there is that small bit that falls into the category of misuse of power. That is wrong, pure and simple. How those errors are handled is important to me and should be important to every FlyerTalker. If even one poster is handed an undeserved death penalty, that is unacceptable.

That is not the kind of community that we are or have ever been, and I hope that that is not the type of community that we will ever be.

Actually, Clue you are, once again, quite wrong. I asked the question when I presented my platform to Randy, before I decided to run for TalkBoard.

Really? You asked Randy on 5-November (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8682330&postcount=1) which was well after these debates began, and certainly after you decided to run. Or that's what we can verify, anyway. I'd expect that if this was a weighty concern, that you would have found use of the "Only Randy Petersen" forum to ask somewhat earlier. You have 474 posts in "Only Randy Petersen." I'm curious: with such a heavy and important issue, why wait this long to ask?

But let's assume the benefit of the doubt: here is what you said (a few posts above) you asked (a whole week before):

One of my most serious concerns is what will happen to people who are "Banned" when you are no longer around to reinstate them

Not, "hey, got any plans?" but "hey, what happens to people who are banned?"

What's funny about this is that I'd think the more pressing question should have been "what happens when you are not around to ban people anymore," (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8687963&postcount=43) don't you?

I have a plank in my platform that says "In the past few years, there has been somewhat of a swing on the TB towards advancing the "pet projects" of the individual members (some of which have no realistic chance of ever happening). I think that misses the point."

I really think we can take this whole "planning for Randy's demise" thing and lump it into "pet project of individual members."

While it may have been established for that reason, it was expanded due to concerns over moderation. Full thread here (http://www.moremiles.org/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=5;t=000062;p=). Incidentally I'm saddened to learn you haven't and won't have time to answer the questions posed on "Question 2" as I'm sure your potential voters would like to know as well.

I like your sig. We could call it "how to call someone a liar while skirting the TOS."

Again, Cholula earlier posted evidence that anything that happens outside of FlyerTalk is supposed to stay there. Is that going to be ignored, too?

I'm amazed that people try to tell candidates what is and what is not a valid platform (for almost 2 weeks now) and then try to use something posted on another forum to "get" another candidate, even though that is expressly forbidden as part of the debate rules.

I like your sig. We could call it "how to call someone a liar while skirting the TOS."

Again, Cholula earlier posted evidence that anything that happens outside of FlyerTalk is supposed to stay there. Is that going to be ignored, too?

I'm amazed that people try to tell candidates what is and what is not a valid platform (for almost 2 weeks now) and then try to use something posted on another forum to "get" another candidate, even though that is expressly forbidden as part of the debate rules.

Glad you like it. I simply felt voters should know which candidates are campaigning on issues far outside their mandate (that they have no control over, as the scope of talkboard is set outside that body's control). Thus, these candidates are stating that their primary focus will be on aspects of FlyerTalk totally outside their control, which all but ensures little to no meaningful TalkBoard business will get done.

As for items off FlyerTalk; there's a world of difference between dredging up some aspect of a candidate's personal life totally unrelated to FT and what you reference.

I did not attempt to find a candidate in the sex-offender database and post that information to discredit them. That would be out of bounds, full stop.

This is nothing of the sort. FlyerTalk and MoreMiles have not-infrequent crossover. Candidates have referenced FT from MoreMiles and MoreMiles from FT. Thus, this happened on FlyerTalk and is directly related to FlyerTalk and core aspects of candidates' campaigns. It is necessary to ensure the electorate is as informed as possible. I merely point to what candidates have said as well as their actions.

Glad you like it. I simply felt voters should know which candidates are campaigning on issues far outside their mandate (that they have no control over, as the scope of talkboard is set outside that body's control). Thus, these candidates are stating that their primary focus will be on aspects of FlyerTalk totally outside their control, which all but ensures little to no meaningful TalkBoard business will get done.

As for items off FlyerTalk; there's a world of difference between dredging up some aspect of a candidate's personal life totally unrelated to FT and what you reference.

I did not attempt to find a candidate in the sex-offender database and post that information to discredit them. That would be out of bounds, full stop.

This is nothing of the sort. FlyerTalk and MoreMiles have not-infrequent crossover. Candidates have referenced FT from MoreMiles and MoreMiles from FT. Thus, this happened on FlyerTalk and is directly related to FlyerTalk and core aspects of candidates' campaigns. It is necessary to ensure the electorate is as informed as possible. I merely point to what candidates have said as well as their actions.

Regardless of your justification, it's against the rules:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8663828&postcount=1

I hope that voters note the irony that some people are trying to discredit and derail serious and spirited debate by saying some topics for discussion should be out of bounds while using tactics clearly and specifically outside the rules of this campaign.

Personally, I'd be more interested in the sex offender registry information.

Punki, it's clear that your view of the Terms of Service differs from the view of moderators, who typically confer with each other on suspensions. How could we correct this problem? By making the Terms of Service more explicit, precisely what I propose in my platform!

Another idea, and one that would likely fall outside TalkBoard authority, would be to let the software trigger a reviewable posting speed limit or short-term timeout if an unusually high percentage of a member's posts are deleted. A small number of members is responsible for a large percentage of moderators' workload, including deletions.

My point is that if you're looking for a workable solution to this problem and if you're willing to compromise, there is probably a solution to be found.

If the price of perfect justice for every FT member who skirts the edge of the Terms of Service is forum pollution that drives away hundreds of valuable members who never get anywhere near the line, that price is too high IMHO.

I have a constructive plan for specific action: clarifying the TOS. Nobody else running has a plan that has any chance of resolving your concern.

Hey, nsx, you have already sold me. I think your ideas are sound and would go a long way to creating greater equity on FT.

This whole debate has been a fascinating and edifying experience. Thanks for the fish. :D

It will be interesting to see what the general FT public decides by way of their votes.

I have a constructive plan for specific action: clarifying the TOS. Nobody else running has a plan that has any chance of resolving your concern.

Not true. I plan on letting Randy continue address that specific concern To wit: (http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showpost.php?p=8716634&postcount=4)

As for the specific things you mention? Well, unlike all other travel communities like FlyerTalk that have sprung up, isn't it pretty cool that we actually have that type of plan already built in other than suspensions and bans and if you want to compare, i don't believe most other travel communities even have an appeals process. If that is your concern, i think over the next 3.5 years that will be resolved to your satisfaction. It might relieve you to know that we have as an advisor for this issue, a recently retired appeals judge with 18 years of experience in such matters and he is graciously donating his experience and time to further our efforts in this area.

I'll let Randy run down this road, and if he asks for input, give it. I'm not going to assume (as some have) that there actually is a problem (I don't believe there is) and that Randy wants or needs unsolicited help in solving it (checking out the entire post in the link above will prove what I have been saying--he's got it well in hand, and this business of his demise is highly overblown strictly for a political platform grab). If he asks the TB to give it a once over, so be it--but until that time we should allow the guy who built the house to do his thing.

That sounds like a revision of the appeals process. I'm talking about making the rules themselves (TOS) more explicit, so that posters and moderators are less likely to disagree on whether or not a rule was broken. The goal is to head off the dispute before it even occurs, not to deal with it way after the fact with the appeals process.

You know, I asked this in another thread and did not get an answer, so I'll try again in this thread, as it seems to be more apropos:

I guess I just don't see how the TalkBoard has anything to say about what folks post in any forum.

What I specifically don't understand is why TalkBoard, rather than the moderators and Randy, would be involved in making forum content decisions.

So, I ask: how are we to take those quotes in light of what has been said in this thread?