Moderators?
 

Okay, don't get all excited or overly passionate.

What IF FT went to moderated forums that were moderated by 1-3 persons REALLY into a particular forum topic. Maybe not all forums...but ones with a lot of posts...say the top 10-15. They would have "mission statements" or "rules of engagement". They don't have "arresting authority" but are more like "leaders" and let Randy/Michael know when something gets spun outta control.

Look, don't get excited...this is just a discussion...I (more than anyone http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif) have no power here...it is JUST a discussion.

How about...give pros AND cons?! If you go all negative...atleast give a positive!

Dorian

p.s. if this thread goes nowhere...well then we know the idea is crap! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

I would vote very strongly against it, unless the moderators are Randy's staff.

The reasons being personal bias of moderators. Who are the moderators? What do the moderators do? What would Randy/staff do?

Is there a real problem that is being solved? For example in the Delta thread, Randy's staff was aware of the issue, but Randy had a very busy schedule.

[This message has been edited by PG (edited 09-30-2000).]

I'd not be in favour. There would IMHO be more flaming about what the moderators did/did not do or alter than what is ever in the posts! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

------------------
~ Glen ~

This has been talked about since the earliest days of FT and the overwhelming view has been negative.

Boomer,

Sure, I have read the thread(s) (only remember 1) about it....

BUT, isn't it okay to revisit topics as things change???

Dorian



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

I agree with Dorian: yes to forum moderators.

There seems to be some misunderstanding about what moderators do. They do not:
[*]alter posts[*]allow flame wars to spread[*]interject his or her own opinions[*]allow personal bias of community members to get in the way of his or her moderation duties

A good moderator is expected to remain impartial and should pretty much sit back unless or until a thread turns ugly or otherwise runs contrary to the stated guidelines (which need to be made clear in advance) of the forum.

Check out the Plane Business boards for an example of a successfully moderated board.

So what do the moderators do? What are the stated guidelines? We have often asked Randy but so far none have been received. I doubt if moderators will remain impartial.

There are other moderated boards. I visit DVD Talk forum which is moderated. I once again reiterate my preference that if there are modertors they should be from Randy's staff.

I'm also in favor of moderators. Their mission statement is only to keep the posts on-topic, and the discussion civil. A good example (prior to FT, of course), was rec.travel.air on usenet, which spawned the very informative (and moderated) misc.transport.air-industry

Excellent points regarding the nature of the moderators. This can be a VERY tough job at times just as it might be quite boring at other times.

An impartial effective moderator is a fine idea but no moderator is still better than a less than objective, ineffective one. I tend to agree with PGs' preference that if there are modertors they should perhaps be on Randy's staff and thus "official".

And again, as noted, and as I've personally asked before, the "rules of the road," so to speak, could well be clarified somewhat! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

So I, for one, can easily live rather happily, (I think) either way! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Some nice new comments. I think essxjay put some interesting pionts down which could be expanded upon.

I remember back to the days of early AOL when chat rooms often had a type of 'moderator' (most later sued AOL for no pay). They were very effective...keeping forums on track..answering and posting FAQ's about 'their' forum...etc.

Dorian



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

As I've stated in the past, I'd strongly support it. I've participated on another board that went from being unmoderated to being moderated by volunteers and things got much better after the change.

The advantages I saw were:

- Less and shorter flame wars, as they got headed off at the pass.

- Fewer personal attacks.

I didn't see a single disadvantage. The moderators were well chosen, and there was rarely controversy about what they said.

I don't think Randy's staff has enough time to handle a bboard the size of FT. I bet it would take several people the better part of a day to go through all the active threads. I don't think it's realistic to even ask that.

I agree with dgolds: well-chosen, volunteer moderators is a proven method.

For example, I'd be happy to moderate the hotel or car forums. I don't have any partisanship whatsoever, and if anyone proved otherwise, I would excuse myself from moderator duties. However, I doubt that these forums need moderation, if at all.

What we're really suggesting here is moderation of some of the @Talk and Airline Programs forums. Maybe a dozen or so. I doubt the Aero California forum needs much looking after. <g>

I have posed many questions here, none of which have been answered. Should we not discuss this before we propose solutions to non existent problems.

essxjay,

good points again. i would think that forums with 5000+ posts COULD be candidates...

dorian

------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

pg,

moderators watch over the forum and watch for 'inappropriate' postings and the beginnings of flame wars.

the reason i brought it up....this year there have been 2 or 3 threads that have got 'out of control' (IMO)...if a moderator had been 'watching' the thread it could have been nipped in the bud so to say.

remember in the early summer that guy who joined the board and started slandering everyone and everything??? that took WAY too long for FT staff to respond...a moderator would have seen it and realized it needed FT staff intervention ASAP and could have let them know.

dorian



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

What is the definition of 'inappropriate'? Are my posts inappropriate? Who decides what is inappropriate or not? Who gets the position of a moderator?

I am not saying that there are no rogue posts. But since the sentiment is overwhelming against them they quickly die a natural death. The best thing to do in such a case is to ignore it.

I was probably on my 'sabbatical' at the time of the post you mention. Surely this issue could have been raised then with respect to that post. Why now?

PG, I brought it up now as it has happened multiple times now.

"But since the sentiment is overwhelming against them they quickly die a natural death."

I highly disagree with this statement. If it were true I would never have started this thread.

Dorian

*

[This message has been edited by FQTV (edited 10-06-2000).]

Call me control freak, but put me down squarely in the pro-moderation camp anyway.

I'd see a rotating volunteer corps that involved quite a large number of members who would get assignments only to fora they didn't regularly post in (nobody wants the odor of partiality, and the job should be a chore, like voting or being a bishop, rather than something to look forward to). The volunteer of the month (or whatever) in an area might, say, have the authority to move posts to a "discard pile" forum, where it could be accessed at will but not replied to. Banishment of a user could be accomplished only by consultation with the professional staff at Webflyer and would virtually never happen except in the case of the occasional terrorist.

My euro on the subject.

I think the issue here is action authority and the concept of impartiality.

I think the issue isn't whether an individual has bias for specific vendors/programs. Most of the flames here aren't about United or Delta or Avis - they're about people and ideas. I think, therefore, it's a question of conflict involving individuals. The folks who might be logical candidates for such a moderator role have, for the most part, well-established relationships with other key participants here. That will make it very difficult should one of those individuals be in a position to be "moderated". I think it opens up another can of worms that could potentially be more problematic than the ones we are trying to address by implementing moderators.

I would anticipate that the FT staff doesn't have the capacity to take this on, and I don't see a better alternative.

Excellent points svpii! A moderator, if effective, is a special person! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

These are very interesting ideas violist, yet who/ how many would be willing to volunteer and do a consistently "good" job! I'd, for one, be quite reticent! And the need for effective guidelines remains at issue, as PG noted.

Yes, FQTV, "This board thrives because (of)the willingness to offer opinions and rebuttals...," but I believe it should always be done in strict moderation, with respect for all others on the boards! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

If we do not moderate ourselves, then perhaps someone is needed to moderate for us! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif

Again, as PG notes, "What is the definition of 'inappropriate'?" I too have asked about this in the past. Once again if you'll permit me to ask, why not have some detailed rules explicitly stated up front? Why not have a verifiable, enforceable "signed" agreement by all users to abide by these rules to retain participatory rights? Even within a broad self-regulating community of the type Randy & Co surely prefers, this would seemingly be most helpful and quite workable.

-Are multiple handles permitted?
-Is personal criticism permitted?
-Are friendly exchanges like "Thanks" etc., between FT's to be discouraged?
-Is their a broadband problem to be considered so as to limit our posts?
-Is a certain degree of anonymity permitted or actively discouraged?
-Are repeated exchanges between "undisclosed" family members/close friends permitted?
-What is the policy regarding tradgeties and posting them on FT? Is this discouraged?
-What language, specifically, is prohibited?
-Are complaints and ongoing customer service issues with providers appropriate?
-Is it acceptable for FT's to disclose personal information regarding other FT's specifically against their will?

Perhaps a brief statement addressing these concerns would be helpful, IMHO!

Thanks again to all the FT folks for their continued efforts to make the FT boards work so well for ALL of us! It's very much appreciated! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

BTW- There were various mini and ouright flaming wars perhaps during your "sabattical" PG, and two relatively recent cases of intercession by Randy and his staff where offending comments/threads were edited. Vestiges of these intercessions appear here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/003031.html
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000178.html

It sure would be nice to avoid this kind of "stuff." Thanks! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The link Doc just posted:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum.../003031-2.html

Certainly was an interesting read for me as had not been on these boards during that. May I respectfully suggest anyone who has not read it does so. There was NO "moderator" there, but an obvious idiot like this MileageGod quickly got beaten by numbers and went away to haunt some other chatboard/s.

my two cents...

I really dislike all the personal posts, both smarmy nice and attack-dog mean, however, free speech trumps those dislikes with ease, and, more importantly, I don't believe any moderator chosen (and the process of choice would be a 'campaign' just like the national one we are in in the States (even if Randy et al are to make the choice people will be manuevering))could not help but be hampered by bias precisely because his/her 'interest' in the specific topic is so strong (think of at least two definitions of 'interest' here). Also, as previously pointed out, that bias would also play out when confict ocurred between parties where one (or more) were 'tight' with the moderator.

In the end, the price of free discussion is spending some time listening to people you'de rather not. Interestingly, amongst that wreckage there is the occasional tidbit that is worthwhile or instructive.


[This message has been edited by myriad (edited 10-06-2000).]

meine 2 'Rappen' (= 0.02 swiss francs):
[*]I don't have any exprience with other boards and moderators[*]I am very sceptical about introducing moderators - the 'Helvetians' in general don't accept 'kings/dictators' (we even allow our president only one year to stay in that charge!)[*]I would never want such a moderator-'job' myself[*]I would personally dislike the probably inevitable NorthAmerican-'codes'-of-conduct' /'thinkings'/'dominating' generally applied by the (probably) US-moderators on an international board (I like the North Americans, I just don't want everybody else, from the rest of the world, be forced to follw the same patterns. I remeber, probably more than a year ago, flames started because I did write in german a reply to a LH-thread that was only of interest for LH-ff based in Germany/Austria/Switzerland).

georgie,

if i recall correctly...mileagegod did not just go away...i believe it was more of a request from FT staff (though i could be wrong)....so....there WAS a moderator.

rudi,

totally agree with your statement regarding the board becoming less international. if moderators would do this to the board i would be against them.

dorian



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

A number of people have left or taken vacations from FlyerTalk in reaction to the occasional run of shouting that we seem to get ourselves into. As I count some of them among my friends, I tend to see that as a problem.

>>Why don't you guys just give a rest to this nonsense about always trying to regulate this board?

A deliciously ironical question, given the next sentence in the post. :-)

>>This board thrives because the willingness to offer opinions and rebuttals is self-determined.

Moderation does not inhibit free speech; the idea is to moderate grossly personal attacks, and enforce board rules, if any exist. It does not mean that "there are going to be a bunch of rules." It means that whatever rules there are would get enforced by the volunteer moderators, who are in a lot better position to stay up to date on what's being posted than our hosts here.

dgolds,

your last paragraph sums up this entire thread....thank you.

dorian

Hmmm. Rudi and Doc both indicate above they would NOT want to be moderators, and they it seems are the two most frequent users of the boards and have been for some time. Perhaps that tells us something if they see no need to jump in and take the baton? Who then gets the job? The occassional MileageGod seems to have been chased away by angry stinging soldier ants. Why change anything?

goldelite: Because good (perhaps albeit thin-skinned) people who make valuable contributions often get disgusted with the board and leave during the occasional conflagration. We lost some during the last flare up. Some people lose patience if such nonsense festers.

This is exactly one of the keys...as dgolds points out. We have lost some VERY valuable people (IMO), possibly due to these odd breakouts in the past 6-8 months.

Onefreeman comes to mind....disappearing from OUR commmunity forever.

Others have 'hinted' @ departing forever. Even I have felt the board become a waste of my time for periods.

I know I am not always the most cordial poster but I believe that I do contribute as much as I can with my (old) real-time-trip-reports and my *A RTW chart. I try to show that I want to keep up my 'end of the bargain'....contributing more than I take. Yes, this is my OWN agreement with the board.

What I want is more consistent harmony than I have experienced in the recent past....that is all.

No, I don't know who would/should be moderators....but that is the 2nd decision by Randy....the first is yes or no.

My late night thoughts....at 1am.

Dorian

------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

[This message has been edited by Dorian (edited 10-06-2000).]

*

[This message has been edited by FQTV (edited 10-06-2000).]

Moderators - what a laugh...

Agree with Rudi and others on this point, I do not get told at work what I can and cannot say. If I say something inappropriate I take the flak - surprisingly I am an adult, hopefully act as such most of the time and if people dont like something say so...or even ignore it - although on this forum it is like a red rag to a bull.

I do not want to be told whether a certain topic is inappropriate because United or American or Delta may get to hear about it and cancel lobster for the next 2 years as penance.

I find it more amusing some of the time to read the squabbles.

Moderators appear to be another move towards the American way of life in respect of being so PC - "flame" warning I know, but there is a difference between the North Americans and...the rest of the world in this respect.

Which is all a little strange as the US is supposed to be that bastion of free speech - as long as they dont have to put up with someone else!

PITBULL1K for the record, most posters here including US posters do not support moderators or censorship. You have every right to post your stereotypes about what US is and what it is not, but keep in mind that others have rights about pointing out the fallacies in your words.

Moderators on planebusiness are generally very passive; I've seen several flame wars on there go on for quite a while before they step in. (See one thread about homosexuality that dragged on and on and on....)

In addition planebusiness gets nowhere near the amount of traffic Flyertalk gets.. two completely different animals IMHO.

The only moderation I could understand is if the Flyertalk staff (ie those employed by WebFlyer) wanted to do it. Community moderation doesn't work and especially won't work in Flyertalk where opinion's keep getting in the way...

Besides, I think only the General Traveltalk, Omni, Buzz and United bboards are out of control... The first three is to be expected due to their nature; the last one is to be expected due to the strong emotions United elicits from its audience http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif I do think most air/car/hotel specific boards are relatively noise free and like it that way.

My $.03 (inflation)

Nor does Randy & Co appear to support the idea of moderators or censorship! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif They have undertaken the use of censorship only as a last resort in their view.

And BTW, IMHO, here in the US we are likely just as immoderate as the rest of the world? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

FWIW, we might well be more easily accused of being the "Land of Exceess!" http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Yet we are not voting here on whether we'll embrace either anarchy or democracy- are we?

Also, unless I'm mistaken, Dorian has not yet made a strong statement as of yet either way regarding moderators - but rather simply and tacitly put forth an idea and asked for constructive discussion of the concept! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Again, as previously noted in my view, the primary issue may well be "just what are the guidelines?":

-Are multiple handles permitted?
-Is personal criticism permitted?
-Are friendly exchanges like "Thanks" etc., between FT's to be discouraged?
-Is their a broadband problem to be considered so as to limit our posts?
-Is a certain degree of anonymity permitted or actively discouraged?
-Are repeated exchanges between "undisclosed" family members/close friends permitted?
-What is the policy regarding tradgeties and posting them on FT? Is this discouraged?
-What language, specifically, is prohibited?
-Are complaints and ongoing customer service issues with providers appropriate?
-Is it acceptable for FT's to disclose personal information regarding other FT's specifically against their will?

Once again, IMHO, ONLY a brief statement from FT genuinely addressing these concerns will effectively put this issue "to bed" once and for all! And it just might solve the seeming problems perceived by some FT'ers by enabling all the contributing members of the FT community to more effectively govern themselves! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

dg1, I respect your right to state your opinion, but want to follow it up with my own.

In my experience, moderation does work. It can work here, too. It's not about inhibiting people's right to express their opinions. It's about keeping discussions civil and somewhat on topic.

I've been on two moderated Internet forums, one a mailing list that deals with some extremely personal issues, and the other a technical forum on CompuServe. Both can get quite heated. I've rarely seen the moderator take anyone to task on either forum except when things really flared up. (At which point, there were usually several calls for "Moderator?") My take on moderated discussions is that knowing that a thread is moderated can give participants a little extra incentive to think before they hit the "submit" button.

I've unsubscribed from two other discussion forums that were not moderated, and both of which I really enjoyed when I started reading them. The level of discussion degenerated to such a degree that I couldn't take it any more. I saw that happening on FlyerTalk this summer, took a two month vacation, and came back hoping for the best. (So far, so good.) I think it's an idea worth looking at.

I'd certainly appreciate hearing more - why don't you think moderation would work, and especially here on FlyerTalk? More specifically, where have you seen moderation on an Internet board to be a problem, and why was it a problem? Perhaps I'm too biased in favor of moderation because I've only had good experiences with it, and need to hear about some negative ones.

[This message has been edited by dgolds (edited 10-09-2000).]

It is true (Doc), I have not taken a specific stance.

I for one am against rules and control...let me state that up front.

If I had to choose....it would be:

60% moderators
40% no moderators

Like said above...moderators control the peaks...nothing else. They "call in the troops" when necessary.

Hey guys, this is just discussion anyway. My feeling is that Randy would NEVER go with moderators anyway. IMO though...it will be necessary eventually...assuming FT continues to grow in user numbers.

Dorian



------------------
Dorian's Star Alliance RTW Price Chart: http://www.informationlab.com/rtw.htm
Blondebomber's Star Alliance Comparison Chart: http://members.home.net/deercroft/starall00.html

I found this board summer of 1999, being a passive lurker. But I have noticed the loss of some great members, and less-frequent contributions from others. The flame wars and the like are a huge reason why I am not an active participant here, but now I am registered and may change that.

I'm firmly on the pro-moderation side, as long as it is not someone from within. It would need to be an outsider with sound judgement. If the topics got overly personal, off-topic, etc, it would be ok to close the thread. I'm also a lurker at PlaneBusiness, and they have little problem with moderation, though sometimes the moderators take action later than I'd like.

The country the majority of FlyerTalks hail from is based on the idea that if you are unhappy with your rulers (moderators), you have every right to revolt to change that. If a moderator continually makes bad calls, letting his opinions on the heated topic get in the way, he should be kicked out and a new moderator called in. It won't work if this can't happen.

IMO.



[This message has been edited by netminder (edited 10-09-2000).]

dgolds, Just like you have good experience with moderated lists I have bad ones. I ran a succesful email based mailing list with several hundred subscribers. After a spat of problems we switched to a moderated environment. The level of discourse immediately dropped ... we went from a hundred posts a day -- most good -- to ten or twenty, most bland. Too many people questioned the choice of moderators -- especially since as the owner of the list we chose others as moderators.

So hence I agree with the others here if we are goign to hvae moderation it's going to have to come from someone somewhat detached from the day to day discussion and also with authority from the source -- the owner of the site.

In any case, I think it's obvious some of us want moderation, some don't. A simple test would be to moderate some bboards and not moderate others. Maybe moderate Buzz but not Omni. Or something like that.. and see what happens.

dg1: That why I posted the question. Thanks for sharing that experience. Now I have a much better feel for where your viewpoint is coming from.

I take it from your post that (1) moderation really quelched discussion on your list, a bad thing, but also (2) your unmoderated list had problems, else you wouldn't have gone to a moderated one. So where's that happy medium?

Obviously, I would hate it if moderation caused a good list to lose subscribes (other than the inevitable MileageGod69 types.)