Let me remind all of you that FT's moderators are volunteers. We have day jobs and personal lives also and there is only so much that you can realistically expect as such. All in all I would state for the record that the mods do a great job. ^

Is everyone satisifed? Obviously the answer is no but I submit to you that the overwhelming majority of FT's members are. Incidentally, food for thought, how many of FT's members actually cared enough to vote for the TB elections. @:-)

Having been a referee for almost 3 decades I have always seen being a moderator somewhat similar although there is a lot more being a librarian involved than athletic prowness.

Besides disagreeing with the sticky part the only thing I believe it is missing is some teeth for those that for whatever reason desire to have repeated Eric Cartman moments. Post deletion IME is not enough and I would hate to send somebody off for continued infractions in a thread they believed would only lead to a post deletion due to the TOS writing.

I would suggest inserting something that would cover those very few who would desire to ruin something that "potentially" might assist FT going forward (emphasis on potentially.) It probably should surprise nobody but actions that a moderator may have taken have led to multiple cussing emails, having their email address registered to porn sites and/or even physical threats.

Since SanDiego1K has already stated in this thread that she is committed to being more responsive than Randy might have been (and I will agree although have read somewhere that someone did not receive a response) there really isn't a worry IME that a moderator would "potentially" overstep their bounds. If the individual did it is simple enough to send an appeal.

Back to being a referee. You can complain about the referee but not publicly, especially right after they blew the whistle. The complaint must be done in private with the league authorities. If done publicly in a professional league one would have to pay a fine sanctioned by the league governing authority. Amateur leagues have sanctions that do not involve money for a violation.

If referees are found to be overstepping their bounds or not properly applying the "Laws of the game"they are removed from any further assignments. As long as I have been a volunteer moderator Randy and now SanDiegoIK have done the same for moderators. (Note this is not implying in anyway that every moderator who has had that title removed from under their name was forcibly removed. Many left for other reasons just as referees quit officiating.)

Footnote -- Moderators advise for TOS input. The final decision has always rested at the top. IIRC the first TOS was written before there were moderators.

I keep reading this recurring theme of "Mods need to be accountable..." which frustrates me somewhat. There appears to be this insinuation that we aren't.

The last time I checked we were volunteers. And we volunteer to Moderate on a IBB, which at the end of the day is a part of a large, online business. Designed to generate a profit.

The business gets to make the rules. It's their gold. I have no problem with that. If I did, I wouldn't have volunteered in the first place. Or if the rules or environment changed and I didn't agree with them (or it), then again, free to leave.

My personal opinion is that I am accountable to Carol and ultimately to IBB. No one else.

Koko, as hard as you are campaigning for your cause (crusade) and I admire you for it, I disagree with just about everything you're fighting for.

Because as far as I'm concerned, if I had any influence over IB, I'd campaign with equal voracity to eliminate TB tomorrow. Pointless existence if you ask me...

Given that a change in administration here has made the management more responsive, and given that there is a strong precedent (and perhaps some valid reasons) for handling these matters privately, both on other Internet bulletin boards as well as extra-online activities like sports leagues, perhaps this topic isn't something that really needs addressing at this time.

Have you ever asked yourself why you volunteer your time and effort to "a large, online business" which is "designed to generate a profit"?

If you think about it, it is actually a very strange thing to do. You clearly are not doing it for the good of the membership because you admit that you are not accountable to the average member and would even like to get rid of the membership's only elected body.

Do you do volunteer work for General Electric, Deutsche Bank, Royal Shell, or any other for-profit business?

I certainly can not talk about you, specifically, as I don't even know you, but there are some moderators who get "paid" by ego-enhancement and a (largely imagined) feeling of power.

In that, they are like the worst of the the TSA screeners. (The better screeners, IMHO, are doing the job in order to support themselves and their families.)

The really poor screeners, however, are those who are most protective of their authority; are proud of their ability to stop someone from posting (oops, I mean "flying"); feel that they are not accountable to the average poster (another slip, I meant, of course, "passenger"); will not discuss or explain what they are doing because it is against the TOS (darn it, I meant it is "SSI"); and expect to be universally respected and are shocked when they read on a bulletin board that they are not.

Are there good moderators? Of course. Indeed, some are truly excellent. They are motivated by their desire to help posters and demonstrate that in the way they interact with them. I don't think that the majority of these really care to whom they are answerable because they have very little for which they must answer.

Wow. Just wow. It's rare for me, but I'm pretty much speechless. I wonder how many moderators share your views on accountability.

I can only assume you applied the above logic to your volunteering to serve on the Talkboard in the past.

Well, no, for two reasons:

1. TalkBoard has no authority.

2. When I served on TalkBoard, FT was not owned by a faceless company.

But much of what I said does, indeed, apply to members of TB. There have always been some who were interested only in their own ego-building. What was important to them was having their title under their name, keeping it there by staying on TB as long as they possibly could, and keeping TB as secretive as possible. (Indeed, when I first joined TB they had a rule called the "quiet period" -- during the voting period on a motion TB members were not allowed to discuss the issue publicly.)

There have been other members who were interested in raising issues which they thought were important for the membership and, having done that, did not seek more terms. Their egos were not in the least bothered by no longer having "TalkBoard Member" under their user handles.

Not a faceless company no but FT was a for-profit business nonetheless.

I guess there is a possibility that there is a bad apple in the bushel. You know that, I know that, what is unknown is whether it is going to be many or not even 1.

The evidence indicates the majority who have ever moderated did not do it for the strange reasons you elaborated previously. Otherwise FlyerTalk would be an entirely different place than it is. We would not be discussing what is needed to improve it nor would we even be here. We would have abandoned it to the trolls, flamers, spammers and everyone else who doesn't appreciate a good thing.

Could equally apply to everybody who is a current Talk Board member or moderator. To imply the opposite is IME an incredible leap of faith.

You are right but we didn't see it that way then. Look, I also do work for three friends (one an FTer) at no charge. I assist them by writing press releases and advising them on the best way to get them published.

In all three cases, these are start up businesses and I would feel I have been "paid" simply by helping them get off the ground. If they do succeed, I would then ask to be paid for future work.

I was actually in a room a couple years ago when Robert Briscoe and Randy exchanged compliments about each other. Trying to convince those in attendance that the other was the smartest man when it came to the internet. But I digress.

Unfortunately not. I certainly am not going to name names but it isn't even necessary -- in most cases their own actions and statements do that job for me.

Admittedly, most FTers don't know who the good mods are and who the bad ones are but that is only because the great majority of FTers (about 95%) rarely come to the board.

Of the active FTers, I would say that the overwhelming majority know who are the good/bad mods. Heck, I will go further than that -- the mods themselves know it (and several have been honest enough with me, in private, to discuss this problem).

As far as TB members are concerned, there have been some over the years (even the years when I was on it), who were there solely to massage their own egos. Others, who considered their own status to be rather unimportant, were excellent members.

Here, I am going to name at least one name: Kokonutz. I did not, in all honesty, vote for him but he has shown tremendous guts in making the proposals he has already made. I am certain that under Randy he would have already been given a life-time ban from FT. It remains to be seen if Carol will follow the same route.

If you want to see something interesting, do some research and see how many non-mod FTers received suspensions while running for TB, serving on TB, or shortly after leaving TB.

The suspensions generally had nothing to do with TB (at least in theory) but the odds of this tiny group of posters just happening to be suspended without any relationship to their TB connection are rather remote. The chances of winning a state lottery are far greater.

The issue I have always had with some members of the TB is that they are motivated & sometimes obsessed by issues that the vast majority of FT'ers couldn't give a hoot about. Often times it is much to do about nothing. @:-)

FT has always been a for-profit business whether it was owned solely by Randy or today by IB.

Eventually bad apples get discarded whether they be moderators or TB members.

Incidentally I would like to remind everyone that when FT was owned by Randy and functioned as for-profit business (same as today) Randy would stick his neck out and risk alienating the major airlines to support causes like saveskymiles on the DL board and the cockroach movement on the US board. This endeared us to Randy and as a result many people volunteered their precious spare time to assist FT in various roles. IMHO IB would not risk doing this today.

Here we go again with a conspiracy theory!