kokonutz

Thanks, dude!

Ok, you don't think mixed perspectives have been a problem in the past. I strongly disagree, and I think the UA/CO merger process is just the latest example of TB moderators not worrying about a TB function because the moderator corps already created their own action plan.

But forget the past. Let's look forward.

And the thing is, you get right at the heart of the matter in the bolded bit above. The era of FT being under Randy's benevolent dictatorship is at an end. FT is going fully corporate now. The blurry line between working for 'Randy's community' and working for IB is now a bright line: the mods work for IB.

Frankly if I were a moderator I'd probably be organizing some collective bargaining with the boys at IB, working toward a compensation package of some sort. Now, some would say that such a notion is exactly why I am not allowed to be a moderator, but the fact of the matter is that what was heretofore a benevolent dictatorship divided up into fiefdoms where regional governors kept the peace through noblesse oblige and Randy's oversight is transforming into an corporate sweatshop. Like it or not, things ARE changing.

And through this change it would be comforting to know that the folks on the elected focus group actually represented only the perspective of the posters.

Then again, perhaps IB and Carol will find the TB irrelevant. Maybe IB will professionalize moderation of their own volition. But in the meantime, imho, active moderators already have split perspectives. And that split is only going to widen through the coming change.

This is not personal. Not for me, anyway. I suspect, but will never be able to confirm, that it is personal for some folks who like to have as many titles under their name as possible. We are a community, after all, of people who define ourselves by the various 'status'es we hold.

As for perspective, I believe I may have originally coined (or stolen from somewhere else) the acronym IJAFIBB. Nothing said or done on FT is as important as the LEAST important thing that ever happens in real life. ^

That said, I am a fan of citizen legislators, of untainted opinions and of pure perspectives. I neither gain nor lose anything personally from this proposal. I believe that the entire posting community stands to gain from it though, and that it would stand as a bulwark for my philosophical priorities.

I prefer "The Dude Abides."

And the Dude abides.

techgirl

As a former TalkBoard member AND a former moderator, I would absolutely 100% support Koko's proposal.

I in no way want to limit how anyone participates in FT or how much time they give to/spend on FlyerTalk. But my experience is that moderators have access to information and discussion that makes it very difficult to represent the community impartially.

Football Fan

Bravo!

bobsgt

Thank you, SkiAdcock. I appreciate your acknowledgement
(I knew I was going to like you from the way you handled yourself in the "Come fly to me" thread when one of your posts was grossly misunderstood.)

ME: I read this as an interested outsider, sitting in a roomful of people with security clearances way above my pay grade. Thank you for sharing your perspective! ^

Obviously my support or oversion to this proposal really doesn't mean much one way or another. But in recognition of a point Kokonutz makes, I have a different perspective from most (if not all) of the other posters in this thread in that I have never been anything at FT other than a registered user. My post count is artificially inflated from the "come fly to me" thread. I had 246 posts until then, and likely only 20-30 that were of any value to anyone of those. (Explaining how credit card processing works, what an expedia booked room is from the hotel perspective, a few MR deals.)

In summary, I shared my opinion not only because I like to hear myself talk, but because I wanted to share my unique perspective with the board and interested FT'ers. My position, at this point in time and based on the information available to me at this moment, is that my experience would be diminished if I had to choose between Cholula moderating the AS forum or serving on TB. I would not put my favourite mods on TB. And that means I may well end up voting for less-qualified, or perhaps even unqualified candidates for TB. And as a California voter that just faced that dilemna in November, I do not want to have to make that kind of choice here.

For what amounts to volunteer army at TB, I am exceedingly pleased with most aspects of what I see as "Joe the average user". But I have an open mind, and could be made to see value in this proposal if somebody would explain to me how I would benefit if this change were made.

Cheers!

Q Shoe Guy

Yes, Bravo!^

ozstamps

Bravo Four.

I served with techgirl during my 2 year elected term on Talkboard, and Jen and I seldom voted the same way on any motion, so there is no mutual back-slapping going on here - as the voting records will clearly show.

A brave and honest post, and a most telling one, carrying far more weight than most on this thread IMHO, to any savvy readers.

As Koko says "the times they are a changin" with FT and IB and Randy et al.

I agree with him the Mod group should communally hit up whomever is making the mega bucks from all the ads here, for some recompense for their time and input, and if that comes to pass, there really must be separation of powers.

A year back this idea would be a total non-starter, but in 2011 .. who really knows?

Glen

kokonutz

They sure are.

In addition to requiring TB members to take a leave of absence from FT moderation, I think TB members should take a leave of absence from MilePoint leadership roles. MilePoint is a direct competitor to FT and there could be a conflict of interests to serve in a leadership capacity on both sites. To be clear, I am not saying there IS a conflict. I'm saying there is the perception of one and there clearly COULD be one.

Gleff acknowledged this when he resigned from the TB (and its presidency) to go work on MilePoint.

I think that was the right thing to do and should be made part of the TB Guidelines.

Maybe I should have started a separate thread as this is a related but different issue.

obscure2k

I think you should have started a separate thread.

kokonutz

lol, ok, I will.

goalie

AS am I ^

Markie

That the membership have elected Moderators year after year tends to suggest that fewer of the membership see this an a real issue, that do some people here.

As TB motions can only be made by TB members, unless you can obtain traction from a couple of the current members this won't get to First Base. However, elections are due in a few months and this could certainly be a platform for anyone running for TB.

B747-437B

How much of that is due to the fact that censoring discussion of moderation prevents the membership at large from becoming aware of the conflicts that occur on a regular basis?

Markie

Not sure, but I am afraid that since your regretted departure from TB there is no one championing the idea of term limits, and so we might well see the position remain unchanged for the foreseeable future.

SkiAdcock

Term limits & mods being elected to TB by FTers are 2 separate issues.

Speaking only for myself I'm supportive of term limits ala, serve 2 terms, take 1-2 years off, like professional assns I belong to do, and which I mentioned in the term limits thread in this forum that koko started. I do not support the if you've served it means you can never serve again. Also doesn't mean the topic won't be discussed & voted on this year, btw. There's plenty of time, & even B747 when he was on TB, said he'd bring it up later in the year.

And WRT to mods being TB members, I don't have a problem w/ it. I'm not a moderator & still feel that way. I've never subscribed to the black helicopter thing re: mods.

Cheers.

B747-437B

And now of course B747 is no longer on TB. Conspiracy theory anyone?