Go Back   FlyerTalk Forums > Community > TalkBoard Topics > TalkBoard Election Debate Archives > Talkboard Debate Archives > TalkBoard Elections/07
Sign in using an external account

 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:18 pm   #46
Moderator: Las Vegas
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Programs: DL DM, AA Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 12,079
While the insights leading up to (and perhaps after) a member getting herself suspended makes for fascinating reading, I'm failing to see what this has to do with the TalkBoard, or being elected to the TalkBoard.

Please Do Not Post Opinions of Moderation, Moderators or Their Actions Here

Has something changed?

Last edited by skofarrell; Nov 6, 07 at 8:27 pm. Reason: lousy spelling and grammar
skofarrell is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:20 pm   #47
Founder of FlyerTalk
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,536
Actually I see it a little different and don't want to butt in with these discussions but you seemed to direct this to me. From my observations, the topic of Moderation gets the most interest because the overwhelming number of candidates (you can review yourself what the huge majority of candidates have to say) have to defend their POV that Moderation on FlyerTalk is something to be respected rather than despised. But hey, it's an open system and all topics are welcome. I actually think that most would prefer to move on to topics that they could actually be active with on FlyerTalk topics which were within their spelled out responsibilities. But please, I'm not involved in this debate and wish you and all other candidates a great time communicating with our members.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki View Post
Thank you, Randy, for that information. Since neither Hunki nor I have never received a warning, I had no idea that there was a system that caused warnings to be sent. When was that system put into place? How does that work?

Do the moderators first just discuss the post at issue with the member in question, or is a warning automatically generated when they first contact a member regarding a questionable post? One Candidate mentioned that he sometimes exchanges up to as many as 20 PMs with a member in order to resolve a questionable situation, which, BTW, I think is very admirable. In that instance, does the member get 20 warning notices?

In each and every election we have held so far, the subjects that garner far and away the most interest are those that deal with moderation. It is clear that people are very concerned about moderation and how it works. Any and all information that the moderator team can share with the general membership will go a long way to further greater understanding.

When enhancements like this are made to the moderation system, it would be wonderful if they could be announced.
Randy Petersen is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:30 pm   #48
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
Posts: 3,093
Quote:
Originally Posted by skofarrell View Post
While the insights leading up to (and perhaps after) a member getting herself suspended makes for fascinating reading, I'm failing to see what this has to do with the TalkBoard, or being elected to the TalkBoard.

Please Do Not Post Opinions of Moderation, Moderators or Their Actions Here

Has something changed?
Hi
I totally agree and if this keeps up it will turn this election into a complete and utter farce
Radioman is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:37 pm   #49
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,695
I don't know of anyone who despises moderation and certainly no candidate who has voiced any opinion of that nature. Moderators are absolutely necessary and almost all of them do a great job. IIRC I happened to among the very first people on FlyerTalk who ever suggested that we develop moderators, and that was because it was apparent that we needed them. (For those of you who weren't around in those days, there were some clowns who would jump on the boards on the weekend and let loose with some pretty wild stuff, knowing that Randy would not be able to deal with it until Monday.)

In this particular election many candidates have rather emotionally railed against TalkBoard overseeing moderation, but I don't think that there has been one single instance where any candidate has suggested that TalkBoard should oversee moderation. I did suggest that in the future we need to develop some sort of board to review suspensions after Randy is gone, but it was very clear in my suggestion that that body would be totally separate from TalkBoard.

IMHO, people want to know more about moderation because it has been held in secret for far too long. It needs to open up. Obviously, not opening the moderator discussion boards, but opening up information so that the general membership understands the moderation procedures, plans and goals. How hard would it be to have the the moderators report to the general membership when they make a policy decision? People trust what they understand and fear what they don't understand. It would be very much in the best interest of both the moderation team and the general membership for the moderators to communicate as much information as they possibly could to help the members understand their positions.

We need to get past the point where every time that someone makes a suggestion for improving moderation that that suggstion is immediately interpreted as moderator bashing. There is room for all of us to improve. Honestly, nobody's perfect.
Punki is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:49 pm   #50
nsx
Talkboard Member, Moderator: Southwest Airlines & Travel Safety/Security
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, fan of Hyatt, Priceline, and Hotwire
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki View Post
We need to get past the point where every time that someone makes a suggestion for improving moderation that that suggstion is immediately interpreted as moderator bashing. There is room for all of us to improve. Honestly, nobody's perfect.
Punki, please read your signature. Then read it again.
If you would like to see more fair and even-handed moderation, please vote for me, and tell your friends!
Can you tell us with a straight face that this is not a statement that moderation is currently unfair and not even-handed?

I have made a proposal to improve the Terms of Service to make disputes less likely, which I think meets you halfway very constructively. You have yet to respond to that proposal in any way. Come on, work with me a little. Otherwise I look like a fool for trying to have a productive exchange with you on this subject.

I'll tell you what: lose the signature and let's get down to brass tacks and put together some examples for the Terms of Service right here in this forum. Are you game for that?
nsx is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 8:55 pm   #51
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
Posts: 3,093
Hi
Folks this is getting way too personal. Please STOP IT.
Radioman is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 9:00 pm   #52
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,695
Actually, nsx, I have been very positively impressed with your independent statements thus far in this debate, and really do want you to expand on your ideas. Since it drives me crazy when political candidates spend all of their time tearing down their opponents, what I have been trying to do instead, is refrain from commenting on other peoples' patforms and focus on presenting my own ideas, visions, and opinions.

I think, however, that I might start encouraging people who put forth their own solid ideas to begin to elaborate on them.

I can tell you with a very straight face that I would vote for anyone whose signature was, If you want to be more beautiful and more fit, vote for me, without for even one second taking that to imply that they did not think I was already beautiful and fit. Now if their signature instead read, If you want to be beautiful and fit, vote for me, the implication would clearly be there.

Truthfully, I have been thinking about coming up with a new signature before I leave for AKL on Thursday. Since you asked so nicely, I will make a point of it, just for you.

Last edited by Punki; Nov 6, 07 at 9:05 pm.
Punki is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 9:03 pm   #53
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: New York / Hawaii / Nevada; CO Platinum Star, Hyatt Diamond, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 3,801
Moderation

The best kind of "moderation" for the FlyerTalk community is one in which your typical, every day user, doesn't even recognize that there is moderation.

I support policies and procedures that give our fine talented team of moderators the ability to quickly clean up spam, to coach threads to remain on-point, and to deal with those that detract from common sense rules quickly and painlessly.

I do not support over-moderation. I have seen some rare instances where moderators in the past have tried to impose their opinions into a dialog or debate by warning/flagging those who post views that differ from them. However, this is far from the rule nor the norm and I don't think we need to over-react or over-generalize this as a widespread moderation issue.

As long as content is on-target, is non-offensive, and is of some benefit to the community, I am fine with it. And as long as the moderators have the basic guidelines to keep to those standards, I don't think under or over moderating becomes an issue.
Weatherboy is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 9:04 pm   #54
nsx
Talkboard Member, Moderator: Southwest Airlines & Travel Safety/Security
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, fan of Hyatt, Priceline, and Hotwire
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki View Post
Truthfully, I have been thinking about coming up with a new signature before I leave for AKL on Thursday. Since you asked so nicely, I will make a point of it, just for you.
Thanks, Punki. I truly appreciate the kind gesture.

I'll try to dig out some examples of deleted posts and adapt them as examples to show what I have in mind for adding (perhaps as an Appendix?) to the Terms of Service. I think you'll like it. I should have done this homework before.
nsx is offline  
Old Nov 6, 07, 9:20 pm   #55
 
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: 9,256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Randy Petersen
I actually think that most would prefer to move on to topics that they could actually be active with on FlyerTalk – topics which were within their spelled out responsibilities.
I think we heard this, somewhere in the vicinity of milepost #8 in this very thread.

Question for the candidates who still insist upon developing strategies to control something that our host indicates is not within the Talkboard's purview: how exactly is that going to work, any why would it be the least bit beneficial to spend the Talkboard's time on it, especially in light of what Randy said before and reiterated just now?

Found a little something in the archive, which I'd like to ask Punki about. This can be found at Suggestion: Make the TalkBoard forum public (read-only) (or here) and is, as of the time of my edit, pristine (meaning it's never been edited, and if an edit does show up it's after our gentle membership has read what I'm currently writing/quoting):

Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki
I guess I just don't see how the TalkBoard has anything to say about what folks post in any forum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki
What I specifically don't understand is why TalkBoard, rather than the moderators and Randy, would be involved in making forum content decisions.
It sure seems that you are supporting what a good number of people are saying on this thread, but it strikes me (and I'm sure others) contrary to what you are saying on this thread. ??? You asked the initial question, after all.

So I really don't get it: Randy's confirmed the purview issue and (in your own words) you don't seem to have a problem with the status quo: why the original question and why are we continuing to bat this around?
__________________
This space for rent.

Last edited by ClueByFour; Nov 6, 07 at 10:25 pm.
ClueByFour is offline  
Old Nov 7, 07, 12:04 am   #56
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,695
No problem, nsx. Lot's of things come easily if you just ask nicely.
Punki is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 12:54 am   #57
nsx
Talkboard Member, Moderator: Southwest Airlines & Travel Safety/Security
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, fan of Hyatt, Priceline, and Hotwire
Posts: 16,160
Here are some concrete suggestions for making the Terms of Service more specific. These should give everyone an idea of what I mean by specificity that will help posters and moderators have a common understanding of what is allowed and what is not allowed. These suggestions should also dispel any worries that making the Terms of Service more specific will be anything other than a benefit to posters.

1. "Fighting words" or "flame bait", meaning posts guaranteed to draw plenty of hostile return fire, are not allowed. Content-free insults of forum participants or their favorite airline ("only losers fly Sky High Airlines") are a popular version of this type of value-subtracting post. Unless the insult is so uproariously funny that even the targets of the jibe will laugh, don't post it. The same goes for insulting backhanded compliments like "Thanks for not flaming back even though you wish you could have". The easiest way to avoid this error is to base your posts on interesting and useful factual content. Because you know what they say about opinions... Everyone has one.

Another way to avoid this error is to find something nice to say once for every three negative posts. That, plus respectful wording of negative posts, will show good faith to everyone with eyes to see.

2. If you make a habit of throwing stones, don't ask the moderators to protect your glass house.

3. Avoid posting political opinions outside the OMNI forum. There's no benefit to bringing politics into a program-specific forum, even if everyone agrees, which they probably don't. These posts annoy a significant minority of readers and subtract value from FT even if they don't escalate into open argument.

4. Name calling is not allowed, even if true. For example, calling a troll a troll is a personal attack. Furthermore it only feeds his anger and creates more forum pollution and more work for the moderators. Don't feed the troll! Please use Report Bad Post instead. The RBPs go only to moderators, and they don't pollute the forum.

5. If an annoying post remains in place, let the readers judge who is causing trouble and who's being nice. Readers are really good at that. Retailiating in kind against negative comments pollutes the forum further. It only takes one side to stop a food fight, and the cheerleaders always have to be that side. Not responding to annoying posts is the single most effective method that members can use to reduce forum pollution.

6. Being willing to give ground even when you know you're right is one way to show that you have what it takes to be a good neighbor on FT. Readers will notice, and they will respect you more for it. Others will be more likely to forgive your transgressions if you routinely forgive theirs.
nsx is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 2:26 am   #58
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Department of Homeland Sincerity
Programs: WN Platinum
Posts: 12,063
In my opinion the moderators and Randy do great work, especially considering all the activity that takes place.

I barely have enough time to read a few threads on most days on the forums of most interest to me, and I can't imagine the demands on the moderators.

The posters have a duty to abide by the rules. If there are moderator actions which may be questionable, there are clear paths of escalation all the way to Randy. These are quite reasonable imo.

There will always be disputes, but if people respect each other and follow the TOS, FT can be much more enjoyable and productive for all.
UALOneKPlus is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 6:25 pm   #59
Suspended
 
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,695
Well I promised nsx a new sig before I left for New Zealand and this seemed like exactly the right thread in which to initiate it.

Before I changed my sig I read over every post in this thread and found that only five of us had actually answered the question: "What would you suggest would make moderation more palatable to the general membership?"

It amazed me that the question caused such a brouhaha, I thought that everyone on talkboard would be thrilled if we could find a way to make moderation more palatable to the general membership, as well as more fair and even handed. I actually thought that the reason that the moderators got together for meetings was to find ways to make moderation more fair, more even handed and more palatable for the general membership, but then that was just a guess.

So anyway, after reading all of the responses to the question, here is a summary of the answer, and all of them were really good ideas:

Pizzaman = More transparency
nsx = More clearly defined TOS
Punki = Better communication from moderator team to general membership.
skofarrell = Create a system where member feedback of the moderator actions can be reviewed and evaluated
Radioman = More moderators

Good ideas. Heck, I might just vote for all of us.

I sincerely hope that both the TalkBoard (old and new) and the Moderator Team, as well as Randy, make every possible effort to implement these ideas, to make FT moderation even better than it already is. Maybe you can get that JDiver guy to act as a coach. I suspect he might be a professional.

Hope you like my new sig better, nsx.

You never know, there might even be enough crazy people out there that like my ideas, to elect me.

Last edited by Punki; Nov 8, 07 at 6:29 pm. Reason: typo
Punki is offline  
Old Nov 8, 07, 9:35 pm   #60
nsx
Talkboard Member, Moderator: Southwest Airlines & Travel Safety/Security
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN CP & A-list preferred, Interstate BBQ at MEM B17, fan of Hyatt, Priceline, and Hotwire
Posts: 16,160
Quote:
Originally Posted by Punki View Post
Hope you like my new sig better, nsx.
Props to Punki.

I just learned that the last TOS revisions took 1.5 years from start to finish. I think the TalkBoard term is 2 years, but I really wasn't intending to spend that whole time on one iteration of TOS clarification. If the key is having someone push the work along, I promise to be that person.
__________________
Thank you for your support in the TalkBoard election! Follow the progress of our member-elected TalkBoard here.
nsx is offline  
 
 
 

Bookmarks


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 8:46 pm.