I am definitely for moderators. I got in on the tail end of some pretty nasty stuff, but it worked out. I look to the moderators to 1) keep a Forum/Thread on track, regardless of the "old" or "new" FT (actually the "new" FT is just an evolution, as far as I can tell); 2) keep negative and inflammatory posts in check.

I appreciate Moderator1 and Moderator2 identifying themselves. At least I know how to distinguish between their posts as Moderators and FTers, and I feel they have remained impartial.

As for essxjay, I can not distinguish her roles. There is a mix of "old FTer" and "Moderator" that I find hard to understand (and I'm a very understanding person!).

Some good points, and glad I was not the only one to dislike dismissive and demeaning terms like "kiddo".

And Cactus Pete please do not overlook you were in the very midst of many of the wild threads, and as I recall a good number of users got time outs, including some you sided strongly with, so fault and blame clearly lay in many places. Those days are past, and Moderators are here. I think there is a feeling from the few posts before this that those who moderate must be even-handed and transparent and VERY careful with their wording. A tough call, but they all volunteer and were not forced to take on the job, and therefore accepted those responsibilities with eyes wide open.

I guess the big difference at this point is between those that feel moderators are needed to keep things on track, at the expense of more/better information, and those that think moderators should be reserved to filtering offensive posts (all of which probably starts a whole other debate on the definition of "offensive"...but there's a smell test here).

[This message has been edited by nologic (edited 08-25-2001).]

Many different threads going on about moderators, but this one is the longest and the one I have previously contributed to.

My previous posts on this subject have expressed support for the moderators and their efforts. I have also expressed my concern that some posts on this topic have lacked a bit of respect (mostly FTers posting about moderators; one time a moderator posting about a FTer).

Moving on, now. I would like to know exactly what the scope of the moderators' roles are? More precisely, moderators have been assigned certain forums and the forums for which they are responsible are posted on the boards. Do moderators then see their responsibilty carrying over to other boards?

I ask this question because over the weekend I received two e-mails from moderators regarding a post I made to the United forum.

The first e-mail was from a United moderator who politely explained the problem with my post and asked me to edit it, which I did.

The second e-mail was from a non-United moderator and stated very cursorily that my post was prohibited by the FT Terms of Service and to please edit it. This e-mail was signed "FT Moderator".

Again, my question is: what exactly is the "official" role of each FT moderator and what, if any, responsibilty do they have to moderate forums to which they are not assigned?

I would appreciate any feedback. Thanks.

Blair -

Perhaps the most useful aspect of having "moderators" on FT is that it gives folks like "FT Moderator" an outlet they probably need.

If they weren't "moderating" at you, they'd probably be scolding you for not having your seat back in the full upright position . . . (or, worse yet, not having your underwear and socks properly sorted, folded and put away in the correct drawer).

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Currently there are only three moderators on FlyerTalk; Moderator2 (Craig6z), essxjay, and myself Moderator1 (burkey). If you received email's asking you to edit your thread, and they were from anyone other then any of the three of us, please send it to which ever one of us is responsible for that forum so we can track down the party sending it to you.

From time to time, if one of us is away, another may step in to assist, but in general we only operate in the forms as where we are listed as moderators on the main FlyerTalk Miles forum summary page.



------------------
burkey
FlyerTalk Miles Moderator
MilesBuzz
American Airlines
[email protected]
------------------------
Please remember the format of FlyerTalk.com when making posts:
FlyerTalk Miles
Stick with FlyerTalk Miles for all your miles and points information.
FlyerTalk Travel
FlyerTalk Travel is the place to bring up all of your general travel questions and comments.
FlyerTalk Dining
Check out FlyerTalk Dining to learn where the food's good, where it's bad, and how to get there.
FlyerTalk Airports
Visit FlyerTalk Airports to discuss everything from parking, to the best airport restaurants and shops.

Thanks, Moderator1, for your response. I appreciate the explanation. I understand the need for moderators to help one another out from time to time.

As stated in my previous post, the first e-mail was from Moderator2, the UA moderator. The second e-mail was signed essxjay FT Moderator, so it was from one of you three.

I guess that's what confused me: I thought the first e-mail was appropriate and I edited my post. I wasn't sure why the second e-mail was necessary.

Thanks again for your response.

This all seems VERY confused - Is this our new 'lords and masters' (Moderators) now sending contradictory e-mails?

Must have been a pretty bad post to merit two moderator edicts.

Actually, nologic the above mentioned post was a complete cut and paste of a copyright article, which as you know, is a violation of the TOS we all agreed to when we signed up here. That's why I notified the poster.

No, Markie, there was was no cross-purpose in the emails to blairvanhorn. As burkey stated when one of us is away another moderator might step in.

Aah, such a logical explanation. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif

Such a LOGICAL explanation ??????

Well last time I heard there were three (3) Moderators total. (Wait til we have a few dozen!) There is total inconsistency in their methods and styles kiddo. (oops - please edit that one out - only moderators can use those terms. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif )

One of the three (3) Moderators seems today to contradict the comments above. Or more precisely, seems content to moderate the Forum he is assigned to but others seem to think and act differently based on the above example.

Moderator #2 said today:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000526.html

Seemed logical at the time...The copyright thing seemed to make sense as a problem, althought the process they used may have been a little unusual.

I have less of a problem with how the moderators are acting (with the exception of the "kiddo" comment, which I suspect she would take back now that she sees the reaction), than with many of the policies themselves which they are enforcing -- essentially as directed.

There are bound to be inconsistencies in the implementation of these policies because the moderators are new to this and moderating is not their full time job...also, there is a natural evolution/learning curve here.

But, all these deletions and locked threads make this whole place seem and feel so serious and heavy-handed. Just look at all the locked threads in MilesBuzz -- who wants to participate in a volunteer, interactive web community that is so formal and intense about such "small" matters?

Shouldn't we be as inviting and as inclusive as possible? Isn't that the key spirit here, not regulatory aggressiveness and exclusion? For those that think I am going too far, this is indeed what it feels like to those of us who have had threads locked and moved, and been the subject of harsh comments. I know the enforcement approach is well intended, but it comes off as very aggressive and anti-participatory.

Is this really consistent with most people's expectations for this site? I can only image the reaction of new people who come to the site and see all these closed threads and must say to themselves: "give me a break?"

Of course, this extensive debate itself, which I have done plenty to foster, borders on going too far and being too serious...

[This message has been edited by nologic (edited 08-30-2001).]

"he" is a she... and she's a good kid.