kokonutz

So what you are saying is that I'm your back door man!?

I think Carol has an open mind too, as proven by her patience with this thread. And what I am suggesting is remodeling the house to make it more transparent and directly responsive to the posters. Doors are irrelevant to that process because I am suggesting re-positioning them altogether.

Thanks for the correction.

But I do think the bit I bolded does a good job of demonstrating how the self-selected make rules that are unknown to the posters at large in a process that has zero opportunity for input from the posters. What exactly is the behavior mods seek in choosing other mods? What is the process for granting absolution after time? Democratic vote? Consensus? As I said before, I don't know what else I don't know. And as someone elected by the posters to represent their best interests, that bugs.

Maybe a good first step is to invite the TB to the private moderator forum on a read-only basis, and vice-versa. That way the two management groups can at least be clued in on what the other is working on.

All I know is that I was pretty clear in running for the TB that breaking down the walls between day-to-day management and the posters was a priority. Creating transparency and more direct responsiveness to the posters by those empowered with control on FT is something I've advocated for thirteen years. Ain't going to stop now.

And that's your answer, Sharon, by breaking down the artificial walls between the TB's model of collaborative representational management and the management of FT that is less responsive to the posters we can create a structure by which constructive input can be made to all aspects of the FT experience.

No one person nor group of people have all the right answers. By creating a more collaborative structure that encourages rather than punishes input we can make FT a more responsive and useful place.

For example, I have some ideas on mega-threading. I would love to engage in a collaborative conversation about it among the entire FT community to work toward a solution. Right now, to do so I have to go off-board or risk getting banned from FlyerTalk for life. Does that really make any sense at all? That's one example among many where the current structure is holding back making our FlyerTalk the best FlyerTalk it can be.

FT has two great resources in the TB and the Mod corps. Why not apply the best practices of each to both? Add transparency, poster input and well-publicized structure to the Mods. Add Hyatt Elite status for the TB <ducking>.

Admittedly, there are lots of ways to improve the structure of FT to create a structure more open to collaboration, adaptation and improvement. My OP is just one. What do you think? Is there a better way to achieve it?

RichMSN

Let's try this, too:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...rm-limits.html

Would it surprise anyone here that one of the TalkBoard members is coming up on 10 consecutive years of service on the TalkBoard?

tcook052

Just how does one go from revolution to remodelling?

ewrfox

1 year and 1 year off.. Give new and current members the opportunity to make FT better with fresh ideas. This will also allow those outside NA a greater input on the future of FT.

travelkid

Point being?

Belittling koko? Many tried that, and maybe it just shows kokos leadership material?

To me remodelling or revolution- same same. Lets call it a dynamic evolution. But lets not have mods, TB, CD, IB or whoever block that.

kokonutz

Hey, mixing metaphors is my specialty! I take to them like a duck to water off it's back!

How about this: I want to revolutionize the role of the TB by empowering it to truly remodel FT?

Like peas and carrots in a pod!

scoow

So you favor opening the private TB forum to everyone? I seem to recall that being a campaign platform for some previous TB candidates.

That sounds an awful lot like an argument in favor of change for the sake of change.

I'm not opposed to change. But I favor, as Sharon suggests upthread, looking forward and making changes that move the board in a direction that will benefit members in the future.

travelkid

Thats what evolution is about^

tcook052

Glad OP took my post as intended as I couldn't resist hoisting koko on his own petard. Nothing more sinister than a gentle poke given his very public policy pronouncements.

Hey I'm easy to peas.

My point was remodelling suggests there is something worth keeping while revolution IMHO doesn't. Call that pedantic word play but to me words matter when we're communicating on an IBB.

With regards to your run for TB prez you'd have more of a chance at earning my vote using 'remodel' rather than 'revolution', though that is only one voters humble opinion.

goalie

No, I think travelkid is speaking for themselves and has their own opinion as do you and as do I. And mine is that with the exception of a small few (a very small few) most don't know that TB exists nor what goes on to run F/T until they run into a situation where a vote by TB has affected their F/T experience. Yes, continuous change is a good thing but saying that change demanded by "small, frequently-complaining minority" is bad is, imho, flat our wrong as there have been many many instances where a group of "rabble rousers" have in fact created something pretty darn good (and if my fading memory serves me right, the year 1776 comes into mind). Most people don't like change and are happy with keeping things the way they are but sometimes, change is in fact a good thing. Only time will tell but to make it work, folks need to have and open mind as those that don't are (imho) a detriment to the process and saying things like "note in the scope", not part of the purview, and etc simply blocks the process of saying (or at least asking), why not? Not saying a certain change should or should not take place but simply closing yourself off to it with a "sorry, not my table" does more harm than good.

kokonutz

Ok, but since we are being pedantic, I need to remodel your idiom:

It's hoisted WITH/BY one's own petard, not on.

Petards are too small to be hoisted onto:



That said, in the spirit of collaborative effort I will happily adopt your suggested more toned-down rhetoric. ^

tcook052

Your moderation is appreciated.

Kagehitokiri

why is it that the focus always seems to be on moderators and not policy?

the only policy that comes up is the policy regarding discussion of moderators.

CPRich

Same here. And I wish it had stayed that way. Every time I check in here it reminds me of being back in high school. At best.

Brian

I say bravo to Koko for flinging his body in front of a train that will do it's very best to run him over.

There is an irony that the business behind this website generates it's income through our speech, yet simultaneously censors and stifles that speech by opaque and arbitrary standards. This is fact.

Pretending to have user representation in the form of a Talkboard is an illusion when that organization's charter is so severely restricted as to render them impotent in relevant oversight and change. This is fact.

Creating topics that simply cannot be discussed by regulation (moderation/moderators), while pretending to mimic an open society is cynical and dishonest. This is fact.

Creating a secret society of powerful individuals who are not elected, but rather chosen, fronted by an impotent elected body, is so creative as to be a model for despots everywhere. Having certain people as members of both organizations is genius, especially with, from the point of view of the general membership, unlimited power which cannot be challenged in a public appeal, or with public view of the rationale behind their decisions. I'm uncertain and uncaring of what the businesses motives were for structuring this way; but it was a deliberate choice.

Koko, they're going to go through phases of rendering you irrelevant. It will be ugly. Organizational dynamics are what they are, regardless of the seriousness of the organization, or lack thereof. If you last out your term without being defamed or dispatched from Talkboard, I'll be amazed.

If Talkboard has any cojones at all, they will make you President. Consider it a litmus test.