Hope so...

FWIW, if this goes to motion, I'm likely to vote for it.

Based on offline complaints I've heard about some fora, I think it'll only be impactful if it's available in all fora...the only thing is that I would venture to say that the majority of moderators are viewed as doing an excellent job and there's only a few who are overzealous & over-moderate...the challenge is that if you can't speak of specific actions, it's hard to point out the sometimes seemingly stupid moves these specific mods make...and on occassion, when they are pointed out, they are either corrected or ignored...and when they are corrected, the behavior doesn't change in the long run...the same moderator will sometimes make the same seemingly illogical decision...

Public forum for member-mod collaboration: an example

ETA: ... and another example.

^

Collaborative management feedback rocks!

Having had direct experience of opening up a channel for dialogue along the lines proposed, my advice is to proceed with great caution.

Reading the comments posted in this thread, I am picking up a general feeling that moderators or mod teams have the ability to determine the culture, style and content of a forum. This is a misconception. It truly is the membership that has the power to shape and steer the direction of any given forum. The role of a moderator is a varied one but primarily we serve as a concierge (or butler as I prefer to call it) so placing the spotlight on moderation or moderators sets unrealistic expectations. The ToS serves as the principle point of reference for all members (including moderators) and it is folly to assume this can be modified via a myriad of mod feedback channels, not to mention the instability this would cause if the ToS was opened up for debate across all fora.

What we have done on the BA forum is request feedback from the denizens of the forum not on moderation per se, but on how the experience can be improved. We introduced a feedback thread along these lines in February 2009 at a time the forum was hurting. Personal division between members and intolerance to newcomer's questions was dragging the forum down. It was the right initiative to address a specific set of issues and timely executed. The result was tremendous. We received positive feedback, suggestions relating to areas in need improvement but most of all, members participated, absorbed the views of other members and reflected. The forum went through a self powered recovery. Similarly, the mod team was able to implement a number of small scale initiatives that had wide base of support.

We took time to consider a number of bigger issues and tabled our ideas in a follow up feedback thread. The response was very good but without clear consensus and in a back drop were members were on the whole happy with the status quo, others developed feedback fatigue and/or had underlying worries their cherished forum would be bent out of shape. So on the basis of previous experience, I would reluctant to open up dialogue again in the foreseeable future unless there is a chain of events that precipitates a specific need.

Discussion of this type has a very short shelf life, beyond which there are vastly diminished returns and the increasing risk of internalisation. For this reason, I urge TB to tread very carefully - not for the sake of moderators but in the interest of our members, who represent a broad diverse church and principally come to FT to engage in discussion of travel and miles.

Thank you for your input and food for thought.

Could you please provide a link to the thread you mention?

Is this it:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...your-help.html

The list of feedback threads, in full...

Aug 2007: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...-thoughts.html

Feb 2009: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...ter-place.html

Feb 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...-comments.html

Aug 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...your-help.html

Sep 2011: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/briti...-part-2-a.html

And not from me either!

And I agree as well and have subscribed to both threads to see how it unfolds and my hockey pucks as warranted

well said, I'll just add the same goes for positive feedback - hearing a Thank You or kudos recognizes the good work most mods do, while an absence of kudos may trigger a mod to reconsider their approach or attitude.

I have had such a thread in Travel Products for over two years... when first posted, a few comments... and then nothing until I posted on it yesterday.

I have a tendency to get more private messages than public comments... and that is OK... I can work with both.

Then again, Travel Products is not the most controversial forum. I spend more time dealing with spammers than anything else.

Good for you too!

Now get your butt to NOLA for the Sugar Bowl, baby!

Unfortunately, we are booked to spend New Years in NYC.... hate to miss it, but hate to get disappointed... the Hokies have a way of doing that... and I lived through the Dooley years!

How about a history lesson for any newbies (and not so new "lurkers" like me) that might be following this thread ?

I've see it posted many times that " the TB has no purview over moderation " and I have to ask;
Why was it set up that way ?

Since FT is no longer owned by a single person, is there any posibility, that in the future, the TB can influence "The Powers That Be" to change it ?

I'm trying to understand the reasons, past and present, for the structure of FT, where the elected body seems to have very limited control over what effects the people that elected them and the "moderators serve at the pleasure of" the appointed Community Director.

I know that it's not my playground, so I have to play by the rules. But to me it seems too much like " I'm the parent and I said so ! ".

Thanks,
Mych

That's a fantastic question and one which is open to a great deal of historical revisionism.

Here's my take, as someone who has been an active poster since the start of the board:

Basically, once FlyerTalk started to take off, FlyerTalk founder and former owner Randy Petersen set up a dual track of management of his IBB.

He recruited volunteer moderators to clean up spam and enforce the TOS. He shielded these folks from any form of criticism by making ANY discussion of moderation grounds for swift and certain disciplinary action. He wanted his moderators to be answerable to him and him alone.

He also created the TalkBoard so that all members could have some representative input into the creation of the TOS and the forums. For some weird reason (I guess so there could never be discussion of moderation EVER by anyone but him and other moderators) he put an iron curtain between the two management structures.

Anyway, in the end apparently he decided that this created a lot of problems, because after he sold FlyerTalk then left and started his new board he put in place NEITHER a TalkBoard nor moderators.

Instead he has paid moderators and 'guides.' Open discussion of moderation is allowed and management is by fiat.

In any case, we are now under the indirect management of forum owner Internet Brands and direct management of their appointed 'Community Director,' Carol (SanDiego1k).

While IB and Carol have decided to start from exactly where Randy left off, IMHO, Carol is far more open to ideas and constructive criticisms to make FlyerTalk a better and more useful place to visit than Randy was. She is also more organized and consistently engaged.

So, ultimately, it is 'her' board. Some members have been trying to convince her (as well as the moderators) that the way Randy ran things with limited moderator accountability and no collaborative input into day-to-day management squanders the good will and good ideas of forum posters.

This proposal, for example, seeks to create an opportunity for collaborative input on the day-to-day management of forums by that forums' posters. It is an idea that many moderators are implementing on their own and appear to be having a great deal of success with.

That's a Very Good Thing, imho. I suspect that under former management my posting this thread would have gotten me suspended. Today it is an avenue for hopefully making FlyerTalk an even better internet bulletin board.

So you end up with some, like me, pushing for greater input, collaboration and accountability in the day-to-day management. And others who cling to the paradigm of 'never discuss moderation ever.'

Anyway, that's MY take.

Others may have a different take on the history and where that history leaves us today, and where we should take FlyerTalk in the future.

Not really, LOL, I just tested it by making a few posts in Randy's feedback forum on the other site and they were gone after less than 5 minutes .

Same ol', same ol'.

That's what a lot of people miss when they blame some of the individuals here: To a large extent, they were just executing Randy's directives.

I don't expect that to end up being any different at the other site. It starts at the top.

As to the topic of the thread: Yes, I think that is a great idea.

Just a bit of revisionist history!

In the beginning, moderation could be discussed more freely on FT. However, it was observed that to do so, didn't make many of the dissatisfied more satisfied. They were dissastified because they profoundly disagreed with the approach to moderation, often because they had been on the board since the beginning and their viewpoint had never changed from that of it being a small board with a handful of members where we all had a thrilling time discussing how great we were. They wanted to carry on being able to post what they wanted where they wanted... along that route lay madness.

And, since moderators were unable to defend themselves - they (as I wasn't one at the time) found there were a large number of outright lies being put out, which could not be refuted due to Randy's restrictions to the mods on discussing discipline with anyone other than the person disciplined and possibly other mods/Randy. These lies sounded terribly oppressive to those who didn't know the real truth, fostering ill-feeling against the moderators - who could not speak back/give their version/post what had actually happened.

Given the choice between allowing these types of conversation to continue to no good effect, or allowing mods to openly speak about other people's discipline, or banning conversation entirely since this is a board about points and miles, Randy chose the third course.

All that meant was that those who were still dissatisfied tried to use TB as an outlet for their dissatisfaction. As a result, and because Randy thought that moderation policy should be independent of popularity contests, TB and moderation were separated.

In a way it is sad. A large amount of dissatisfaction arose (IMHO) because those who were dissatisfied were such because they were not in control of the board, and many of them did not appreciate that loss of control. Yet because of them and the hue and cry they raised against ALL moderation, we lost all ability to discuss moderation honestly and openly. Moderation isn't perfect and it would be great to be able to discuss members' views on some issues (and indeed some of us are able to do this when we reach a point where we are unsure what the forum users want - cf. the thread in Cbuzz on commercialisation of dos).

But at the same time, when you volunteer to do a task to assist/help, only to find someone is willing to lie to everyone else about what you said to them when they overstepped the rules of FT, well forgive us for being human and not wanting to waste our time engaging in trying to refute that kind of lying spin which tells us how evil and capricious we all are.

Sadly, as moderators know, not all people do act reasonably when approached reasonably. Some really, really, really cannot ever admit they overstepped the mark, don't like being told no, or that they behaved badly - and will continue to attempt to argue for the rest of their time on FT that it was all the mods fault... of course not theirs'!