nsx

IMHO, yes. I'm guessing that the CD receives well over 100 messages and emails per day. Replying to each one would take a lot of time.

That said, our CD, as busy as she is, is much, much more likely to reply to a given message than Randy ever was. I'm betting that the germ of an interesting new idea will draw a response even if there are defects in the first version.

If I were CD, one kind of message I would be tempted ignore is an unfocused complaint without a constructive proposal. Be specific, be constructive and preferably creative, and cc me. Then I will guarantee you an answer from me. Fair enough?

Ancien Maestro

I see the moderators as the senate.. and the TB as the elected representatives..

There is a role for everyone here.. I respect the role moderators have, and commend their excellent work towards orderliness here on the forum..

I also commend that kokonutz wants to be president.. who doesn't? Maybe the words in the OP statement, could have been more carefully chosen.. as it antagonized when it obviously was not meant to be that way..

Markie

I'd like to start seeing some TB Motions coming out of this debate. You don't need to wait until the new President/VP are selected. If we can see some concrete proposals then a proper debate can be had around the specific issue(s).

Dovster

I would, too, although I am not so naive as to ignore the fact that there are enough moderators on TB to ensure that any motion which encroaches on their current exclusive rights will have a very small chance of passing.

Why, then, should the motions be made? Because in one year there will be another election and by the time that two years have passed all TB members will have again faced the voters.

Those who are willing to make moderation subject to the wishes of the general membership will, I believe, prevail in future elections -- but only if the current TB at least takes up these issues.

GUWonder

When TB is as limited in its abilities to alter outcomes as it is, then:

1. Having a TB or even voting for a TB is largely an exercise of such limited utility (at least for the contributing, non-favored, "'sub'-burghers") that those elements with far more power (blanket or targeted power) about the direction of FT may as well take up the role of TB and further restrict the allowances for FT politics, petty and otherwise. And then those non-TB elements could quite ordinarily perform the limited TB role function(s), as has been done before.

2. TB being disbanded -- even by itself -- in recognition of the above wouldn't change much of anything, so why not just celebrate that TB elections are to but be a kind of popularity contest amongst the small minority of FTers who voted for any or no reason at all. All matters FT, important to petty, may end up being "managed" anyway with little to no discernible difference.

If TB were to be less limited in its abilities to alter outcomes on FT, then perhaps TB would attract a greater proportion of FTers as those who vote in TB elections. Absent giving an alternative a try, less is known than could be known.

I would be interested to find out how election participation by FT members correlates with activity level on FT (by those who vote) in various periods prior to voting and in various comparable periods after voting. But who wants to rock the boat before the boat goes too far to become central material for a type of future Vasa ship museum piece -- not that it is necessarily going to happen anytime either.

GUWonder

My primary concern over the outcome being pursued by kokonutz is that the outcome would turn out to be but a tyranny run by those elected (by the minority who cared to vote), a tyranny which would merely replace a sort of benevolent, managed autocracy that is truly no more a liberal, representative "democracy" than is currently the situation on FT.

Additional checks and balances is a nice pursuit, but whether and how they may end up being allowed is in no less doubt today than it was at the time when I voted for kokonutz last month. If anything, denial for such allowance seems to be far more certain today than then. Either way, I don't expect to be any better off on FT over the long term since: (a) most things work well enough; and (b) those that don't get perceived (by some) as working as well end up, rightly or wrongly, being hit.

Dovster

There is an obvious, and already built-in, cure for that -- 4 new members will be elected next year and 5 the year after. If TB's decisions are unpopular ones, those who voted in favor of them will not find themselves re-elected.

Right now, it is only a tiny minority who cares enough to vote, but let TB decisions truly impact our experience on this forum and that will change.

GUWonder

I doubt that it is in and of itself a remedy to the concern about tyranny by way of a voting minority or majority, but it is a concern remedied by other means, including that which is available by way of the FT CD and those appointed by the FT CD to perform current board management activities. I have doubt that FT will ever see the majority of FTers vote in TB elections even if kokonutz's suggestions were implemented without impediment.

The underlying reason why I voted for kokonutz and RichMSN is that their suggestions have a reasonable chance of making the elections matter more and of deepening and widening the participation on FT. In other words, consider your above sentence to be a shared assumption.

kipper

While it may be natural to consult those whose workload would increase, I'm sure if one person doesn't want the added work, there are several others who would volunteer to take on that additional work to help FT as moderators.

Since I usually don't frequent TS/S, how was that issue studied? Was an announcement posted where members could see and comment on the then proposed split? Or, was it "studied" with no real involvement from members, other than a few appointed or elected volunteers?

squeakr

In addition to what nsx reported, members who frequent the forum were also consulted about the change. The change was not so much about reducing workload (although for the times I was a moderator there pre-split, I can say there were upwards of 20-30 post reports) but helping insure there would be a forum for members to ask travel safety and security questions without getting embroiled in arguments about "smurfs."

ewrfox

Randy may not reply right away, but he does email you when you contact him.. I'm still waiting for a reply from March..

kipper

How were members consulted though? Were only certain members consulted via PM or email, or was there a thread for discussion, open to all members?

nsx

Rules prohibit anyone but Carol from discussing details that have not been made public. I'll let the results speak for the completeness of the effort.

What we are allowed to do here is discuss how one would go about a decision like this publicly. Please throw some ideas out here.

The biggest challenge I see is that only the forum's moderators know just how many posts are having to be deleted or moved, and what the misplaced or disallowed content tends to be. A public discussion would have to proceed on only a partial view of the action, yet the decision would apply to all posts.

The situation is like a water polo game where the officials cannot look under the surface of the water, where all the fouls occur. It seems to me that this is a less than ideal way to make decisions that affect ease of moderation.

There may be a dual-committee approach that would solve this to your satisfaction. The biggest process challenge is getting enough volunteers who will actually work on the problem. Opinions tend to be much easier to obtain than actual work.

kipper

Bolding is mine. I've bolded what I think the problems are. Only Carol is allowed to discuss how a decision to split a forum was made since it wasn't done in the sunshine, but rather, was created in the dark of night? So, what it sounds like you're saying is, "Only those who are lucky enough to be invited into the private club know how a decision that affects many people was made."

While I don't know that specific poster information should be given, what is wrong with the public knowing, "In October, moderators deleted 30 posts in TS/S that were overly hostile, insulting, etc."? Nothing is said about who made those posts, only that it was necessary to delete X number of posts in a forum in a specific month.

As far as splitting a forum, I think that those who post in that forum regularly should have an opportunity to comment. If that means that non-poster specific moderation information needs to be provided, what does that hurt?

kokonutz

I think that in the short term some moderators would quit because they don't want to be subject to even indirect supervision and/or direction by and/or any collaboration with any posters they have not themselves first vetted and approved to also be moderators.

But ime there are plenty of posters AND current mods who are willing to step up the the challenge of not only being a FT moderator, but being one that is required to be responsive (in an indirect way) to the posters at large.

I envision a police force that is managed internally, but subject to a community police advisory board.

More importantly, I envision far more open collaboration in creating and implementing the day to day management procedures of FlyerTalk.

Threads where mega-threading can be discussed by posters at large and both conventional and outside-the-box thinking can be applied. There may be a poster out there with a GREAT idea for how to manage FT, but he or she is forbidden from talking about it in a collaborative way. That holds FT back. In koko-world that would not happen.

I think FT would be a much, much better place if the mods and TB worked collaboratively, and checked each others' work. That would provide greater input and legitimacy to moderation AND TB efforts.

FT suffers from 'silo management' between general structure and day to day management. It's inefficient and prevents collaboration and true efforts towards best practices.

The TS/S is a perfect example. In koko-world it would not be a committee of moderators (including a few who happen to be on the TB) who look at the issue. It would be the mods and TB working collaboratively in the best interests of FT. Where the mods make their case to the TB and the TB takes it to the posters and the feedback loop gets totally completed as the TB makes recommendations to Carol to implement for the structure AND day to day management.

Imagine that world, where posters and moderators work together and are responsible to each other via the TB rather than a one-way command and control that exists today.

Maybe it's not a utopia, as navel gazing can get controversial and tedious. But it would certainly add interest in the TB proceedings and would for sure create plenty of posts and clicks for IB to cash in on.