Originally Posted by
Punki
This is unhealthy for a several reasons: First, the sheriff should never be in a position to rewrite the laws.
There is not a moderator on Flyertalk who believes that he or she can unilaterally "rewrite the laws." Not a one. Randy is the ultimate authority anything that happens on FT (or was, for most of the history of FT such as things stand) I really think you need to address your concerns with him on this issue. I believe you have done so in the past--would you feel comfortable sharing the outcome of those discussions and having Randy corroborate the substance thereof?
That type of system is doomed to corruption. Second, the membership feels frustration at being given no forum in which to express its veiws. Third, the moderators suffer from lack of member input.
Since I'm a moderator, and have been for quite some time, I can assure you that your postulation that moderators suffer from lack of member input is incorrect. Moderators have more interaction with individual members than many (if not most) members of FT, period. It comes with the territory.
As a member, I can assure you that I don't feel particularly frustrated with a lack of a "free for all" forum. I can also assure you that the only people who share that particular "want," are, in my experience, those who are chronically dissatisfied with moderator action. In fact, a quick perusal of the "Only Randy Petersen" forum will illustrate this perfectly: there are roughly 10 members who have a long-term and seemingly pointless issue with FT moderation. Almost universally, those members have had multiple disciplinary actions taken, and those actions have almost universally been upheld by Randy himself. I don't believe that to be a coincidence.
Yes, I know that the moderators have their own forum where they talk to one another, and yes, I know that the moderators have meetings where they sit around and talk to one another, but that is not enough. They really need input from the general membership, and we have no vehicle to allows for that stream of input.
This is from the
Flyertalk Guidelines and Rules. Everyone has to acknowledge them to become an FT member:
Our volunteer moderators are responsible for welcoming new members and assisting all members. They have been screened and were selected to serve based on their judgment and ability to uphold the FlyerTalk rules. If you have questions, contact a moderator. The moderators for each forum are listed at the bottom of that forum. Moderators are also labeled as such under their usernames when they post, and a full list can be found here.
Not only does a vehicle exist for that stream of input,
the process has already been in place for years. And it works--I've used it--because in forums where I'm not a moderator, I (and every other mod) use the same system. When I have a question or a concern, I address it to the forum moderator, a Senior Moderator, and Randy, in that order. It's not difficult.
Now, I have not always agreed with what the other moderators, senior moderators, or Randy have had to say about a particular discussion. That will happen to me, you, and every other FT member from time to time--we won't always agree with the way things go. That's life, but to insinuate that there is no process to give input to a moderator is both wrong and way over the line.
Sometimes it seems like the moderators actively avoid input. Let me give you an example.
While attending a FlyerTalk dinner, another member came over to our table and sat down. There was a moderator at the table, but the other member had no idea she was a moderator. When he asked question, "What do you think about moderation on the XXX forum?" the moderator jumped, said, "I just don't have to sit hear and listen to this garbage," and stomped out of the restaurant. This would have been a golden opportunity for her to get input, but she refused to even listen.
Without hearing the other side of this, I simply don't believe this story. We've all heard about
capricious bannings and
being capriciously banned and I will admit that moderators are human--I'm not entirely convinced that even I'd want to be subject to that sort of thing for any significant length of time without getting up for a breather. With that having been said, I've never witnessed the type of behavior you have described, and have logged many more hours in the company of moderators than most.
I think that each of us in a leadership role, whether it be as a TalkBoard member, or as a moderator, has a responsibility to seek out the opinions of the general membership and do everything in our power to assure that we are acting in their best interests.
On this we agree--in fact,
I advocate exactly that in my platform.
However, I'd urge you to contact a moderator via e-mail or PM (as the guidelines point out) rather than calling them capricious; apply to become a moderator rather than run for Talkboard. Be cognizant of the processes that FT already has in place before rushing to change them (another plank!). But above all else, don't run for Talkboard on a platform that cannot possibly be fulfilled (short of a complete about-face on Randy/IB's part).
Running on that platform (from what I've seen) is not only a disservice to the FT membership, but will polarize the relationship between Talkboard and Talkteam (mods). That does not benefit the FT membership at all--which is why Talkboard and Talkteam exist. I know that's why I've been a mod for years and am now asking the FT membership for it's collective endorsement--to make FT a better place. Inciting invective between groups that are working hard to improve FT for all is probably not a good idea.