FewMiles

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

---

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

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

---

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.

---


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

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

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

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?"

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.

Interesting.
---

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

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

---

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 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.

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.

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

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".

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.

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

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

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!!!

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

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

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:

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

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

I am sorry to report that 24 hours later, my Exhibit A 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

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

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

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.

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.

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.