kokonutz

An ombudsman is a pretty good idea, short of full disclosure. And one hopes that Randy currently does fill this role.

The only problem with that is that I dont trust ANYone as much as I trust myself. And even that is not very much. I'd like to see for myself.

I suspect pretty much everyone who thinks they have been moderated poorly feels more or less the same way.

nsx

90% of moderation wouldn't be harmed by full exposure. Then there's that other 10%. One example that comes to mind is a program that provides a very generous unpublished benefit. Wide utilization of this benefit would result in its withdrawal (and in the case I am thinking of, this has apparently finally happened). Exactly whose interest would be served by letting everyone see this information? Nobody here. So whenever it was posted, I deleted it and PMed the poster. EVERY ONE of them agreed with my reasoning. With this approach, people who expressed a need for something similar to this benefit got a PM from me or someone else with the critical information. We used PM rather than posting, and I'm sure you would agree that posting all PM is a bad idea.

With moderation not publicly recorded, how do forum users determine whether the moderator is treating people fairly? Simple:

1. You know what YOU posted before it was edited or deleted.

2. You will occasionally see others' objectionable posts before they are edited or deleted.

3. Ask the people whose posts are getting edited and deleted the most what they think of the moderator. On the Southwest forum, you can ask curbcrusher and gregorygrady.

kokonutz

As long as I have this forum, I just want to say that this is a classic and timely example of inconsistent moderation that causes posters a GREAT deal of frustration.

The moderator in this instance herself points out that her moderation is inconsistent with other mod's approach to moderating personal attacks. In addition to being capricious I also find it condescending.

In this case, an entire thread was closed based on what she perceived to be some personal attacks by one or two posters in three pages of threads. Without getting into the finding of what constitutes a personal attack itself, it seems ridiculous to me that an ENTIRE THREAD should be closed as a result of the actions of one or two posters. If this is the precedent then I can get any thread I want to closed just by acting out there.

There really OUGHT to be both SOPs for moderators AND full disclosure/open deliberations. Poor and/or inconsistent moderation needs to be rooted out and stopped.

doc

---

Koko, again, as I've noted in earlier in this same thread:

---

Moderator Proper Proceedures (DO's)

Do, firstly and foremost, please remember to treat all members equally and with the utmost courtesy and respect. As moderators you are members first, and like any member(s), you are what you post.

Do always remember that you are moderators and not censors.

Do make a good faith attempts to first contact and clearly request posters (via PMs, email, or posts) remove any inflammatory material from their existing, as well as any any future posts.

Do remove, replacing with asterisks, any and all material that clearly violates the current FT TOS. Use HTML comment tags to remove the text from view. Additionally, place a message in the post to properly explain your actions and
and send a PM to the poster ASAP.

Do simply delete a thread if the initial post is deemed to be a flagrant violation of the TOS. Contact the poster ASAP.

Do issue, whenever necessary, a clear, concise, and unmistakeable warning to members, and be certain to document it as proof.

Do correct errors in links or HTML as necessary (no PMs are necessary)

Do close a thread if its participants continue to ignore repeated moderator
warnings, yet always state the reason why, prior to closing such a thread.

Do replace a post bearing any copyrighted article in its' entirety with a link to that article (if obtainable). Alternatively, eliminate all but the opening paragragh, or whichever is deemed to be the most important paragrah or two.

Do move a thread that "obviously" belongs in another forum, to the other
manifestly more appropriate forum. Yet, if there is any doubt, confer with moderators of both (original and destination) FT forums, or simply permit it to remain, particularly if there are already useful follow up posts, and/or many page views that suggest it will perhaps do just as well where it is. If in doubt, leave it.

Do use HTML comment tags to omit text rather than simply deleting it, e.g.
<!-- text to be removed from post -->

Do leave a post in its originally posted place unless it is not absolutely certain to be significantly better posted elsewhere.

Do be consistent as is humanly possible.

Do be sure that there is no room for anyone to ever doubt your integrity based upon your action(s) as a mderator.

Do remember that you too are subject to the rules, and always, without exception, abide by the FT TOS (terms of service).

Do indicate that you are posting as a member, and not a moderator, in such cases as appropriate, and vice versa.

Do always respond to a posters email or PM query and be sure to provide an adequate explanation to members.

Do always respect FT'ers privacy.

Do recognize that we are all imperfect, yet when you have made an error, please be both quick and complete in seeking to correct it.

Do understand and always remember that the use of supposed irony and satire in veiled efforts to demean another FTer is unacceptable.

Do only what is necessary to put out a flame and to maintain an orderly FT!


---

Moderator (DON'TS)

Do not close a thread unless it is absolutely necessary.

Do not close a thread because the topic has simply "run its course."

Do not close a thread simply because it has gotten "off the subject",
rather, suggest that a new topic be created to hold the new subject and ask
that the current thread return to its original topic. Close the thread only if it
is hopelessly off-topic.

Do not close a thread simply because it is a duplicate, or near duplicate
topic. Rather post a message referring to the previously existing topic and ask
FT'ers to post to the earlier thread instead. Closing duplicate threads is acceptable only during times of fast breaking news.

Do not ever elect to simply lock a thread without clearly stating a good reason why you did it.

Do not remove a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not move a post unless it is absolutely necessary according to the DO's

Do not do anything that will even give the appearance of showing favoritism for any member(s). Nor do anything to even give the appearance of showing disdain for any memer.

Do not under any circumstances use your empowered position to further any personal or group agenda(s). Do not forget that it is FT and its' agenda that matters.

Do not forget that you too are subject to the FT TOS and serve at the pleasure of management.

Do not post as a moderator, but rather indicate that you are posting as a regular member as noted above, in any such cases that might warrant it.

Do not fail to respond to a posters emailed or PMed questions.

Do not post personal correspondence of FT'ers, such as emails or PM's, nor the content therein, without the explicit consent of that FTer.

Do not, as any member would not, belittle any member, nor make any post that might be deemed as disruptive. Take care to not appear to be flippant.

Do not compound ones mistakes by further commenting on a hot/inflammatory topic, and possibly making matters worse. It's far better to not post further at all, if uncertain. Rather you should confer with other moderators and/or the FT management as necessary.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=355620&page=1

---

Would this help out Koko?

Also, notably, since there are several moderators both running for the TB and serving at present, do any of you have any thoughts on these proposed guidelines?

This represents the single most critical aspect of the future for FT in my humble estimation.

Would you obect to adhering to such? If no, why not?

Any thoughts, everyone?

Respectfully,

Mark

kokonutz

Doc, yes. I like your guidelines a lot. My example would be covered by about 2 of your 'Do's' and 3 of your 'Don'ts'

I agree with you that poor/inconsistent moderation is my single biggest frustration with FT these days. If ANYTHING could eventually drive me away from this place, that would be it.


BTW, FWIW, I reported the above moderation as a 'bad post.'



Update:

I am pleased to report that other UA moderators have stepped in and are in the process of attempting to apply better, more consistent moderation to the example I supplied. It is my understanding that, to their credit, they were doing this even before I reported the above quoted moderation as a 'bad post,' and the above quoted post has already be edited to read:

I sincerely appreciate the efforts of moderators who apparently are going 'above and beyond' to provide good, consistent moderation.

IMHO, what is considered to be 'above and beyond' ought to be 'baseline.'

VPescado

Interesting this example came up. Due to the nature of my platform, I have been in contact with several mods.

In any case, I had occasion to have a phone conversation with the moderator involved, and this particular thread/post came up.

I really don't want to discuss the particulars of this case (I neither want to use something expressed to me in private conversation against the person that said it, nor do I want to be accused of being an apologist for anyone).

I will say that this is a wonderful example of where an ombudsman would have worked - Anyone who felt closing down the thread was the wrong action to take could have contacted the ombudsman. The ombudsman could have talked to the mod, and weighed her reasoning in light of the standard practices of moderation, and determined if a problem existed.

It is great that another moderator stepped up, but I view it as a fortunate accident rather than any sign that there is nothing broken with the process.

Unfortunately, Randy does not have the time to fill this role. Ideally, the ORP forum would act as a clearing house for such issues, but most everyone will agree that the current state of ORP is far from that goal.

The problem is that there is no clear recourse if you feel a moderator acts inappropriately. An ombudsman gives you the ability to seek reconsideration.

As for trust, how do you deal with with the fact that you are not in the cockpit when you fly? Modern society requires trust at a certain level.


---

Edited to add: I've learned since posting this, that at least one person viewing this thread has incorrectly inferred some things about my conversation with a moderator. To be clear - I spoke to the moderator in question before the update to the problematic thread/post had occurred. The only discussion we had was in the context of an example of moderation.

So it appears that my attempt not to imply anything about the content of the conversation, can be misconstrued as implying that the details of this PARTICULAR thread/post/closing were at issue.

If you can follow all of that, YOU deserve to be elected to the TalkBoard.

Above all, I apologize to the moderator.

doc

---

Agreed.

Again, truthfully, I think most all the Mods are great!

It's just a precious few that I'm concerned about.

To be frank, IMHO, the example provided herein is, unfortunately, somewhat commonplace, actually come to be expected, is and even quite bearable in many respects, as I see it. At least relative to what I've observed myself, and even experienced personally, they are. Look, for example, at the thread I quoted above entitled "Is there a question regarding "moderator guidelines?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=355620

Threads are routinely moved, deleted, derailed, locked, or some combination thereof, sadly, often with no notice ever.

Yet it is the far more egregious deviations that concern me and lead me to advocate the adoption of more clear guidelines, and greater accountibilty. Those where suspensions from posting are involved especially come to mind.

Should someone be administered a "timeout" by some other moderator from another forum, where they had not even been posting? Without any warning beforehand? If so, under what grounds?

Thoughts anyone?

BTW, there are actually one or two mods who, if they were pilots, well...I would take the bus or walk, rather then fly with them!

Mark

VPescado

I think there are some situations where this should be the case - for example the member whose first post is spam for DrSpankHappysHouseOfPorn.com (Ill be deeply embaressed if that is a valid url), should be dealt with quickly. If no mods for the victimized forum are around I would not object to another mod dealing with the thread, the post, and the poster.

However, I do feel strongly that the requirements for such an action should be set pretty high.

BTW question for Randy: Since doc and I share the same first name and exceedingly similar platforms and viewpoints, can we just pool our votes and do a coin flip for which one of us gets stuck with the job?

missydarlin

You do realize that the Talkboard does not govern the policies/procedures of the mods, don't you?

I think you have some positive ideas about moderation, but I would hope that both you and your constituency aren't of the expectation that your being elected to the TB is going to give you any sort of sounding board in which to offer your ideas. Have you considered applying to be a moderator?

The moderator group is in the process of revising their guidelines, and Randy.. as busy as he is ... is still quite vehement about having all moderation issues go directly to him rather than through an ombudsman/review panel.

VPescado

Madam President,

I am of the understanding that technically the Talkboard does not govern anything but is essentially an advisory board to Randy. Please correct me if I am wrong, as you certainly would be more familiar than I.

The above notwithstanding, Randy has shown that he has a great deal of respect for the Talkboard's decisions - even when they disagree with his own.

My goal is to keep the conversation going, build consensus when I am able to, and finally introduce ideas when I can that go along with my platform. I make no guarentees as to my success, only my effort.

I am aware of no reason why it would be outside of the Talkboard's mandate to make a suggestion about improving structural issues with the moderation framework.

Further, I can only presume that Randy will have a natural (perhaps unconscious) tendency to view a PM or email from an elected Talkboard member in a more serious manner than one from a member with which he is not familiar.

In light of these points, I have to answer:

Yes, I do see being elected to the TB giving me a sounding board, of sorts, in which to offer my ideas.

I unfortunately also must conclude that your dismissal of the notion is due to a regrettable lack of vision. I find it ironic that you hold your view, when Randy was the very source of the question about our feelings regarding moderation. Obviously he thinks that TB member's views on the subject are relevent.

I do understand that the moderator group is revising their guidelines, and I look forward to improvements. I further understand that currently Randy prefers to deal with moderator issues. I believe, however, that he is a very reasonable man, and that it might be possible to construct an ombudsman position that he finds agreeable. For example, an ombudsman that could investigate and voice opinions about certain situations, but be powerless to overrule a moderator. This would still provide recourse to the poster, and highlight problems in moderation, without usurping Randy's control.

kokonutz

You make a good point. OTOH, Randy himseld DID ask this question.

And I will say for my part that just having this forum (where under the guise of Randy's own question the general FT rule that talking about moderation is strictly verboten is sort of suspended) is both personally cathartic to me and also hopefully effective in demonstrating the frustration that posters face every day under current moderation practices.

missydarlin

I must respectfully disagree that my conclusion is a result of a lack of vision, but rather from the experience of having Randy shut down previous TB discussions that attempted to wade into the area of moderation, as well as having had him repeat his feelings as such in person less than 2 weeks ago.

but YMMV.

missydarlin

Yes, Randy did ask the question. But asking the candidates their general feelings on moderation doesnt equate (to me) an openness from him to have the TB making decisions regarding moderation. If that is to be construed as my lack of vision, then so be it.

FewMiles

I think it's a bit short-sighted to be calling out others for a "lack of vision" because they pointed out that Randy has previously said that moderation policy is not in the purview of TalkBoard.

This is indeed what Randy has said before and to be campaigning on a platform to change or otherwise have TalkBoard govern moderation is somewhat deceptive, IMHO.

FewMiles..

FewMiles

I don't know that I could say that there's a "one size fits all" approach for moderation. From my own experience and reading the perspective of my fellow moderators, I know there are different styles and preferences for each person. Some like to keep things in check a little more, while others prefer to hold the reins a bit looser. Part of it has to do with the moderator, but a lot also has to do with the nature of the forum too.

I don't really buy claims of "self moderation" because often it's used to describe people calling out violations of others on-thread and that just decreases the signal-to-noise ratio by adding further off-topic commentary. Self moderation is what one does to oneself, not what one does to others.

I don't see that you could argue against the statement that moderation benefits all members of the forum. Moderators help to keep things a bit tidier here on FT and that always makes things more readable and useful and keeps FT where it's supposed to be -- as the premier source of information on all topics of miles, points, and travel.

FewMiles..