What is permissable to post about moderation?
 

The question I am raising is a bit complicated and to keep it from getting even more so, let me get some preliminaries out of the way:

1. This letter is not being written as a complaint about a moderator's action. Indeed, I would not be making this post without first having gotten the consent of Spiff, the TalkBoard Topics Forum moderator with whom I have been exchanging PMs on this matter. He told me that "I have no problem whatsoever with raising this issue in ORP and quoting me. I think it will give Randy an opportunity to state exactly where he stands on such an issue and that can only make my job easier."

2. I had made a post on TB Topics which touched on the issue of moderation, in so far as it effects the TalkBoard Private Forum and TalkBoard members. This post was deleted by Spiff (who gave me the opportunity of editing it to remove all references to moderation). I will be mentioning the same points in this thread but am not doing so now to get a ruling on them or to see who might agree or disagree with them. The only reason I am citing them here is to determine if Randy feels that discussing them at all is a violation of the TOS.

3. At no point in my post did I accuse any moderator of abusing his authority or in any way behaving outside of the TOS. In fact, had I made such a personal attack I do not believe that the exchange of PMs between Spiff and myself would have been as friendly as it was.

The post was made on a thread about a recent TB vote in which it was decided not to make the private forum available to the general membership on a read-only basis.

In a rather long reply, I made a number of points and several of them concerned moderators and moderation.

They were:

1. I did not think it was a mere coincidence that the six TalkBoard members who are also moderators voted against allowing the general membership to read the discussions while the three TalkBoard members who are not moderators voted in favor of it. I said that I believe this is a philosophical carryover from the secrecy in which moderation is wrapped. I also said that while this may have the saving grace of protecting the privacy of individuals who are the subject of moderation that is not the case with TalkBoard -- which usually deals with general issues and not individuals.

2. I felt that no TalkBoard member should be given any sanctions for what he posts on the private TalkBoard Forum. I recognized that this could lead to TOS violations but said that was a lesser danger than having elected representatives afraid to speak their minds.

3. I said that if a TalkBoard member violates the TOS on any forum except the private TalkBoard Forum he should be subject to the same discipline as anybody else but his suspension should be restricted to public forums. He should be allowed to continue to post on the TalkBoard Forum and to vote there. My reasoning was that he was elected by the general membership and no one moderator, or even a group of moderators, should be allowed to effectively disenfranchise those members who voted for him.

Again, I am not asking Randy (or anyone else) if they agree or disagree with those three points. I feel that the TalkBoard Topics forum is the right venue for that, not ORP.

What I am asking is whether or not my having made those arguments violates the TOS.

Spiff feels that they do. He put it to me this way: "Even those TalkBoard moderation policies are not up for public debate.

I am sorry, I know we don't agree on this matter, but Randy's wishes seem clear to me regarding no discussion of moderation policies in the TalkBoard and most other forums."

I, on the other hand, believe that Randy has put discussion of particular moderators' actions off limits as he feels that they amount to personal attacks. I do not believe that he has banned all discussion of policy issues, even when they refer to moderation.

I cited a September thread on ORP in which a poster had raised a question about the moderation on the Starwood Forum. I noted that WHarvey was the first to respond and said that Randy "has made it clear that this forum nor any other forum is the proper place to talk about Moderator actions."."

I said that Randy was the next poster in that thread and answered, "Actually i find this a fair question. My concern over the typical posts about moderation, is that it's not about moderation, it's about an individual who happens to be a moderator and as we have TOS rules in place to discourage talking about other members in person, that same rule would reasonably apply to a moderator as well if that moderator is named as the sole reason for the rant.

This question seems more about a process of moderation."

As far as I am concerned, what I posted was also about a process of moderation and not about an individual who happens to be a moderator. Hence, it is my understanding that the opinions I stated were permissible.

Okay, again, please leave aside the question of whether or not you agree with the points I made. The validity of my viewpoints is immaterial to the question I am raising here.

The only issue I am raising here is whether such issues, which in no way criticize any moderator, are allowed to be discussed on FlyerTalk.

I wonder if there isn't an appropriate comparison to the notion that a member of Congress is immune from slander (or is it libel?) for anything said on the floor of Congress. It seems logical that Talkboard members and moderators be allowed the exception of speaking out to each other on anything they wish.

As to a suspension not applying to that one board, while that makes sense logically, it may not be implemented by the BB software package. In that case, presumably one can assume that talk board members have been around long enough that they would honor that type of suspension without it having to be enforced by an actual suspension.

RichardInSF, while I obviously agree with what you posted, I think it is better not to get into the validity of these points in ORP.

If Randy agrees that they can be discussed, it seems to me that TalkBoard Topics would be the right forum for them to be debated.

If Randy feels that not only personal attacks on particular moderators is forbidden but also any discussion of policy issues about moderation, then these issues should not be discussed anywhere -- and I would not like to be responsible either for violating his wishes or causing others to do so.

OK, I'll stop, and maybe a senior moderator ought to lock this thread pending Randy's comments (and possibly delete those from my first one on down).

Only Randy can answer the main points above re what can and should be posted in the public TB forum. However (in respect to TB) I can advise this was recently raised within the private board, and there were no objections from anyone on current TB IIRC that we are free to speak our minds (within reason) in that presently private forum.

Very frank and robust discussions can and do take place, and IMHO that does not hurt TB. I am sure if anyone abused that privilege and crossed any line Randy would move quickly on it.

There are only 9 TB members and we all know each other pretty much, and have all been members here for many years, so a more liberal discussion standard is possible in that case than when ~100,000 members are involved in diverse general boards. :)

I'm having gestalt issues. Can you repeat the question?

Easily: Is it a TOS violation to express opinions and make suggestions concerning moderation policies?

(It is clearly such a violation to publicly attack a particular moderator.)

Thanks.

I also would like a clarification of this point as it would seem to me that even praising a moderator's action could be a violation of the policies and guidelines "Discussing a specific moderators actions"

Also it seems possible to praise one moderator's action while simultaneously criticizing another moderators action or even criticizing, quite easily, the actions of other posters. Not that I would do such a thing but some posts in my mind seem to border on this possibility.

Randy, sometime within the last day a TalkBoard member was suspended. I don't know the reason or who suspended him nor, if I did, would I post that information here.

This does, however, emphasize the importance of the suggestions I originally made on the TalkBoard Topics Forum and re-posted in this thread. For all practical purposes the members who voted for this person have been effectively disenfranchised.

This is not the first time that a TB member has been suspended nor, I imagine, will it be the last. I do feel strongly, as I stated above, that no TB member should be suspended for anything he posts on the TB private forum and that while he should be treated as any other member for posts made on other forums that he should be allowed to continue to post on the TB Forum only during the suspension.

The place, IMHO, for me to be making this argument is on the TalkBoard Topics forum but I am prevented from doing so until you answer the question I raised in this post. Is it permissible to discuss moderation policies as long as you are not attacking (or questioning) the work of a specific moderator?

Dovster - I think that is pretty much the agreed policy in there now amongst us as I posted elsewhere a couple of days back:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...&postcount=121

I know nothing of the other matters you raise, but that one seems pretty clear cut. As Randy pointed out in that thread, these days there really is nothing being posted in the TalkBoard private forum about other members whatever. Or even gossip and scuttlebutt in my ~6 months there. Hence nothing to be suspended for there.

Boring as it may sound to many, we just discuss matters raised by members for consideration, and vote on them if they seem to have merit. :)

But you are correct, that if elected members of TB cannot vote on TB matters it would in effect be disenfranchisement. And as there are only 9 members, it could clearly skew a vote that was obviously going to be a close thing.

I think the board software allows Admin to grant access to specific forums, even if a member is otherwise suspended, so it probably is not an issue.

Oz, there are two points to keep in mind:

a. No matter how Gleff acts during his term in office there is nothing to prevent a future TB President from suspending a member for what is posted there. Indeed, it happened in the not-too-far past. Therefore, as always, it is important not to leave this up to personalities (and possible personality conflicts) but to decide the matter in advance -- before it becomes known who it will effect.

b. You are correct in that the software would allow a TB member to post only on the private TB Forum. That does not mean, however, that he would automatically be allowed to do so. (In the case to which I referred above, that member was not allowed to post during the term of his suspension.) This provision should be formalized.

I'm a little confused. If someone is suspended, you want them to vote on TB issues? :confused:

I think that person lost their right to vote by being suspended.

And to take this matter a step further, I believe a suspended TB member should be removed from the Talk Board; allowing the next vote getter to take his/her place.

Dan

Dan, I disagree completely with you for a number of reasons but I do not want to have that debate here. I want to have it on TalkBoard Topics.

First, however, I need a reply from Randy as to whether such a debate is pemissable. Again, I want to emphasize that it would not be about a particular member or a particular suspension. It would be a discusion about a policy that would apply to all TB members in the future.

AFAIK, the only reason a FT member can be suspended is for violating the FT TOS. I have been around long enough to have formed the opinion that all current TB members are bright, intelligent folks; therefore, as such, they should have a clear understanding of the standards of conduct that will ensure their compliance with the TOS. Therefore, there really should be no risk of them being suspended while in office.

Rather than rail against how unfair it is to the FT Community that they lack representation from a suspended TB member, I think it's unfair to the FT Community that, by their own actions, the TB member could not comply with the TOS, got themselves suspended, and, as such, was excluded from representing the interests of the community that they are entrusted to serve.

To be fair, I would also expect any suspended TB member who felt they were unfairly suspended to avail themselves of whatever process exists to appeal their suspension to minimize the time they are removed from TB decsions. Still, in the end, I entrust the TB to represent my interests and, in return, I ask they conduct themselves in a manner that ensures they are around to do so. I really don't think that's an unreasonable request.