Originally Posted by kokonutz

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?