Question 2: Palatable Moderation
#16
Suspended
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,690
Kanebear writes:
You are absolutely right, Kanebear, that those are the rules, and rules with which I wholeheartedly agree. We should be allowed to discuss concepts and abstracts of moderation openly and honestly, without discussing specific moderator actions.
In practice, however, the FlyerTalk moderators have effectively rewritten the rule to shut down any discussion of moderation, no matter how abstract, as is clearly pointed out in this recent post by Dovster. Just as an exercise, go to the ORP forum and search the word "moderator" for the past three years and you will see that the vast majority of discussions are simply shut down, period.
This is unhealthy for a several reasons: First, the sheriff should never be in a position to rewrite the laws. That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
Yes, I know that the moderators have their own forum where they talk to one another, and yes, I know that the moderators have meetings where they sit around and talk to one another, but that is not enough. They really need input from the general membership, and we have no vehicle to allows for that stream of input. Sometimes it seems like the moderators actively avoid input. Let me give you an example.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
I think that each of us in a leadership role, whether it be as a TalkBoard member, or as a moderator, has a responsibility to seek out the opinions of the general membership and do everything in our power to assure that we are acting in their best interests.
We all need to carefully listen to one another, try to really understand one another's positions, and then work together to build the best possible community that we can.
Then there's the issue of discussion of moderation. Here, at least, we can discuss concepts and abstracts regarding moderation. The only prohibition regards discussion of specific moderator action at Flyertalk.
In practice, however, the FlyerTalk moderators have effectively rewritten the rule to shut down any discussion of moderation, no matter how abstract, as is clearly pointed out in this recent post by Dovster. Just as an exercise, go to the ORP forum and search the word "moderator" for the past three years and you will see that the vast majority of discussions are simply shut down, period.
This is unhealthy for a several reasons: First, the sheriff should never be in a position to rewrite the laws. That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
Yes, I know that the moderators have their own forum where they talk to one another, and yes, I know that the moderators have meetings where they sit around and talk to one another, but that is not enough. They really need input from the general membership, and we have no vehicle to allows for that stream of input. Sometimes it seems like the moderators actively avoid input. Let me give you an example.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
I think that each of us in a leadership role, whether it be as a TalkBoard member, or as a moderator, has a responsibility to seek out the opinions of the general membership and do everything in our power to assure that we are acting in their best interests.
We all need to carefully listen to one another, try to really understand one another's positions, and then work together to build the best possible community that we can.
#17
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
Kanebear writes:
You are absolutely right, Kanebear, that those are the rules, and rules with which I wholeheartedly agree. We should be allowed to discuss concepts and abstracts of moderation openly and honestly, without discussing specific moderator actions.
In practice, however, the FlyerTalk moderators have effectively rewritten the rule to shut down any discussion of moderation, no matter how abstract, as is clearly pointed out in this recent post by Dovster. Just as an exercise, go to the ORP forum and search the word "moderator" for the past three years and you will see that the vast majority of discussions are simply shut down, period.
This is unhealthy for a several reasons: First, the sheriff should never be in a position to rewrite the laws. That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
You are absolutely right, Kanebear, that those are the rules, and rules with which I wholeheartedly agree. We should be allowed to discuss concepts and abstracts of moderation openly and honestly, without discussing specific moderator actions.
In practice, however, the FlyerTalk moderators have effectively rewritten the rule to shut down any discussion of moderation, no matter how abstract, as is clearly pointed out in this recent post by Dovster. Just as an exercise, go to the ORP forum and search the word "moderator" for the past three years and you will see that the vast majority of discussions are simply shut down, period.
This is unhealthy for a several reasons: First, the sheriff should never be in a position to rewrite the laws. That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
Moderators receive quite a lot of member input. It simply isn't subject to public review and criticism. That's as it should be. If I have an issue with a police officer giving me a speeding ticket, I'll take it up with the officer and on up the line to the police chief if necessary. I absolutely don't need nor do I want Joe-Blow-Don't-Know halfway across town being able to put his two cents into the matter on how I deserved the ticket as driving is evil and we should all ride bicycles and sing Kumbayah. Were moderation such a problem for a majority of FT users, they'd be complaining to Flyertalk staff and Randy. Have you ever asked how many complaints have been received from unique members (as opposed to those merely creating duplicate user names to prove a point)?
Originally Posted by Punki
Yes, I know that the moderators have their own forum where they talk to one another, and yes, I know that the moderators have meetings where they sit around and talk to one another, but that is not enough. They really need input from the general membership, and we have no vehicle to allows for that stream of input. Sometimes it seems like the moderators actively avoid input. Let me give you an example.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
Originally Posted by Punki
I think that each of us in a leadership role, whether it be as a TalkBoard member, or as a moderator, has a responsibility to seek out the opinions of the general membership and do everything in our power to assure that we are acting in their best interests.
We all need to carefully listen to one another, try to really understand one another's positions, and then work together to build the best possible community that we can.
We all need to carefully listen to one another, try to really understand one another's positions, and then work together to build the best possible community that we can.
#18
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
As a member, I can assure you that I don't feel particularly frustrated with a lack of a "free for all" forum. I can also assure you that the only people who share that particular "want," are, in my experience, those who are chronically dissatisfied with moderator action. In fact, a quick perusal of the "Only Randy Petersen" forum will illustrate this perfectly: there are roughly 10 members who have a long-term and seemingly pointless issue with FT moderation. Almost universally, those members have had multiple disciplinary actions taken, and those actions have almost universally been upheld by Randy himself. I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
Yes, I know that the moderators have their own forum where they talk to one another, and yes, I know that the moderators have meetings where they sit around and talk to one another, but that is not enough. They really need input from the general membership, and we have no vehicle to allows for that stream of input.
Our volunteer moderators are responsible for welcoming new members and assisting all members. They have been screened and were selected to serve based on their judgment and ability to uphold the FlyerTalk rules. If you have questions, contact a moderator. The moderators for each forum are listed at the bottom of that forum. Moderators are also labeled as such under their usernames when they post, and a full list can be found here.
Now, I have not always agreed with what the other moderators, senior moderators, or Randy have had to say about a particular discussion. That will happen to me, you, and every other FT member from time to time--we won't always agree with the way things go. That's life, but to insinuate that there is no process to give input to a moderator is both wrong and way over the line.
Sometimes it seems like the moderators actively avoid input. Let me give you an example.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
I think that each of us in a leadership role, whether it be as a TalkBoard member, or as a moderator, has a responsibility to seek out the opinions of the general membership and do everything in our power to assure that we are acting in their best interests.
However, I'd urge you to contact a moderator via e-mail or PM (as the guidelines point out) rather than calling them capricious; apply to become a moderator rather than run for Talkboard. Be cognizant of the processes that FT already has in place before rushing to change them (another plank!). But above all else, don't run for Talkboard on a platform that cannot possibly be fulfilled (short of a complete about-face on Randy/IB's part).
Running on that platform (from what I've seen) is not only a disservice to the FT membership, but will polarize the relationship between Talkboard and Talkteam (mods). That does not benefit the FT membership at all--which is why Talkboard and Talkteam exist. I know that's why I've been a mod for years and am now asking the FT membership for it's collective endorsement--to make FT a better place. Inciting invective between groups that are working hard to improve FT for all is probably not a good idea.
#19
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PALMYRA, PA, USA
Posts: 58,448
The TB never made that decision. It was made by moderators who decided those kinds of posts were ok to the point where postings about free samples has practically taken over the forum.
And for reasons that bewilder me to this day the current TB refused to address that issue and the alteration of that forum by the forum moderators from a forum about one thing into a forum about another thing.
The bottom line here is that unless the TB asserts its opinion the moderators by default decide what a forum is and is not.
#20
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
How do you then explain the 'evolution' of S.P.A.M. being a forum about alternate points and mile currencies to being about free laundry detergent samples?
The TB never made that decision. It was made by moderators who decided those kinds of posts were ok to the point where postings about free samples has practically taken over the forum.
And for reasons that bewilder me to this day the current TB refused to address that issue and the alteration of that forum by the forum moderators from a forum about one thing into a forum about another thing.
The bottom line here is that unless the TB asserts its opinion the moderators by default decide what a forum is and is not.
The TB never made that decision. It was made by moderators who decided those kinds of posts were ok to the point where postings about free samples has practically taken over the forum.
And for reasons that bewilder me to this day the current TB refused to address that issue and the alteration of that forum by the forum moderators from a forum about one thing into a forum about another thing.
The bottom line here is that unless the TB asserts its opinion the moderators by default decide what a forum is and is not.
#21
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PALMYRA, PA, USA
Posts: 58,448
Why is the evolution of S.P.A.M. a problem? How do you know that was a unilateral decision? Seems to me more that as true SPAM sites died out and the forum traffic dwindled, FT members themselves changed the direction of the forum and the moderators didn't impede them. I applaud such freedom.
You seem to be saying that semi-professional moderators have made the job of the Talkboard irrelevant.
#22
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Help!!
We need more questions so we can quit beating the same subjects senseless.
We need more questions so we can quit beating the same subjects senseless.
#23
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,572
My core issue is related to moderation, but only indirectly. The moderators and TalkBoard need to work together to suggest and approve, respectively, clarifications and examples for the Terms of Service so that everyone has approximately the same idea of what behavior is expected.
Moderation on FT is competent and effective. Modifying the Terms of Service will make life easier for moderators and for people who continually find themselves on the edge of disciplinary action, but for everyone else, FT will be exactly the same place as before. That's as it should be. Otherwise we would be fixing what isn't broken, and I'm certainly not proposing that.
#24
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
For shame .
This repetition of course coudl be avoided, in the irony of ironies, with a moderator for this forum.
*rimshot*--I'm here all week, tip your waiters, waitresses, and bartenders.
#25
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: FTFOE
Programs: TalkBoard: We discuss / ad nauseum things that mean / so very little
Posts: 10,225
We need more questions so we can quit beating the same subjects senseless.
#26
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PALMYRA, PA, USA
Posts: 58,448
If this case of forum drift is the most egregious example of defiance of the TalkBoard that you can come up with, I can't see that it's worth making this issue the core of your campaign.
My core issue is related to moderation, but only indirectly. The moderators and TalkBoard need to work together to suggest and approve, respectively, clarifications and examples for the Terms of Service so that everyone has approximately the same idea of what behavior is expected.
Moderation on FT is competent and effective. Modifying the Terms of Service will make life easier for moderators and for people who continually find themselves on the edge of disciplinary action, but for everyone else, FT will be exactly the same place as before. That's as it should be. Otherwise we would be fixing what isn't broken, and I'm certainly not proposing that.
My core issue is related to moderation, but only indirectly. The moderators and TalkBoard need to work together to suggest and approve, respectively, clarifications and examples for the Terms of Service so that everyone has approximately the same idea of what behavior is expected.
Moderation on FT is competent and effective. Modifying the Terms of Service will make life easier for moderators and for people who continually find themselves on the edge of disciplinary action, but for everyone else, FT will be exactly the same place as before. That's as it should be. Otherwise we would be fixing what isn't broken, and I'm certainly not proposing that.
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,289
See above. This already occurs on a daily basis. It seems that you mostly take issue with the information not being made public. Yet many decisions that are made in government and business aren't transparent and the supporting information isn't made public. It's a fact of daily life. Indeed, Talkboard does not have this level of transparency. As a member of FT, I don't want moderation actions and sanctions made public whether they involve me or not.
As far as I'm concerned, Punki can run on whatever platform she wants. Desiring change is the first step in making change happen.
#28
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,572
As to TalkBoard actions, I don't yet see a reason they would benefit from being private. Nevertheless I'm confident that prior TalkBoards have good reasons for any decision to keep some actions private.
#29
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,289
I disagree as to moderator actions, where I have some experience. If a moderator asks someone for a favor, the recipient is much more likely to agree when the request is private rather than public. Private communication takes "face saving" partially out of the equation. This is crucial. Private communication is the invisible hand that keeps FT running smoothly, and it won't work even half as well if it has to be done in public.
As to TalkBoard actions, I don't yet see a reason they would benefit from being private. Nevertheless I'm confident that prior TalkBoards have good reasons for any decision to keep some actions private.
As to TalkBoard actions, I don't yet see a reason they would benefit from being private. Nevertheless I'm confident that prior TalkBoards have good reasons for any decision to keep some actions private.
Personally, I have never been a "problem" for moderators, however I am dismayed when any talk (in general) of moderation gets shut down. As a long-time moderator of another board, the more open the process, the better the board and the better posters adhere to the guidelines and TOS.
#30
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,572
I guess I need to be clear about what I posted. I would never expect all communications between a moderator and a poster be made public. I'm talking about all actions -- post deletions and editing (the editing is already quite public) and suspensions -- why and for how long.
Similarly if you publish rationale for suspensions that could impair the member's ability to rejoin FT successfully, with everyone letting bygones be bygones. I don't see any benefit that outweighs the damage to FT this proposal would cause.