I beg to differ with you as the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread always manages to float back to the top of the board.

And yet in some forums, if you insert a sticky, you'll get complaints about the moderators stickying something else in the thread which was done to improve their experience.

So while you personally may not like that idea, we do need to consider how all the other members of FT - aside from yourself - who may not even be aware of this idea will react if it should happen.

Additionally, I look at this as an idea, and just think it's a hammer to crack a nut. So I have to have a thread so that members can complain about the 3-4 visible moderator decisions I make in a year on Virgin Flying Club. Really?

There's a mistake in critical thinking here, that one size fits all across all forums. It doesn't. So you'll have some forums where the users of those forums will resent the intrusion of another sticky, and you've got some where the amount of visible moderator activity is miniscule... still I'm sure the users of the Antarctica forum will be happy to have a thread to discuss all the moderator decisions that occur in that forum ;)

I also think the balance is wrong - complaining in public seems to be considered more vital than actually talking to the mods about it. Why wouldn't you want to encourage dialogue between the mods and the members in the first instance?

Oh yes, I suspect because this is all about some people on TB being able to see all the complaints which are being made about moderators, so they can gather more grist to their mill..... It also allows TB to begin to insert themselves into the conversation - and we already know that is an aim of some at the moment.

I really hate, this 'one size fits all' approach - it completely ignores the diversity in communities we have on FT. That's not being very representative of the members.

Most forums have links to popular permanent threads posted in one of the stickies. Therefore I favor floating the proposed threads.

The situation with sticky threads reminds me of the 1970s and 198s phone books. Since virtually every house had a phone book, advocates of every stripe insisted that various bits of vital information be included in the phone book. And where did they put it? At the front of the book, of course.

After several years of this, the "front of the book" grew to over 50 pages. You couldn't find anything in there without flipping dozens of pages. An initially reasonable idea turned out to be practically worthless in the end.

The only reason I knew of that thread was because it was mentioned elsewhere. Had it not been mentioned there, I'd not have known about it, and obviously would not have known to search for it.

It seems to work well enough as is. I wouldn't welcome making it a sticky since I don't see how doing so would improve the user experience. If anything, making a sticky of it would increase the chances of missing DL threads of greater interest to me. If a matter arises that warrants use of that thread, people seem to discover it or get pointed in its direction somehow or another.

To answer the thread's headline question, that could be a topic for "Only Community Director" forum (a sort of successor forum to "Only Randy Petersen"). However, there seems to be a desire to keep an OCD forum (no pun intended) off the table.

I happen to agree with you as unless it's (for example), "Reporter wants to put you on TV" or something similar, it's gonna get missed. I don't know if this will work either but perhaps a thread here in TB Topics as this way the thread is in one place (with that thread made a sticky) with an e-mail sent to members the way TalkMail is sent. It's still a leading the horse to water situation but at least it's been communicated to all members. I dunno, just a thought...

That's good input. I guess there are pros and cons to both floating and sticky.

But I think if the threads all have the same very clear title in all forums then everyone will know to look for them or can be told to do so. Something like "Official X Forum Moderation Discussion Thread." The first post could be the TOS that is developed around the threads. In such a case, I think floating ones would work. That was how the OMNI moderation discussion thread worked and ime it worked pretty well.

This is not about complaining in public. It's about allowing posters to collaborate with moderators to better understand and have better, more interactive input into moderation in that forum.

Putting one in each forum ensures consistent opportunities for that collaboration, understanding and input.

Why would a moderator not want that sort of opportunity? It has proven quite effective across several forums, including in Cbuzz which you yourself moderate! Your commercial do thread was brilliant and quite effective. This is simply formalizing that sort of opportunity. ^

Firstly, no black helicopters circling here. Just trying to improve the poster experience using best practices already developed and tested across FT forums. This proposal would not insert the TB into the conversation, it would insert a forum's posters into the conversation!

I don't think it will be one size fits all at all. I imagine some moderation threads will be quite dormant. Others quite active. They will evolve to serve the unique needs of that forum and its moderators. They will help posters understand moderation and help moderators understand posters. It's a win-win!

You don't seem to have understood that the Cbuzz thread was about a very specific topic we needed to seek feedback on. The purpose of that thread has been a bit mischaracterised in this debate. Indeed, included in the OP was the statement:
You seem to be suggesting a specific question we asked is somehow akin to a general discussion on moderation.

The approach has not been successful on all forums it's been tried on. Again, that one size doesn't fit all mentality.

Well you asked a specific question and you got constructive, collaborative feedback that led to better understanding by the posters and more responsive moderation based on what the posters wanted.

Why limit that sort of constructive input, collaboration and outcome?

Can you provide specific examples and outcomes?

First of all I am a firm believer that less is more. Especially so in the case of sticky threads. Anyone that is a board regular on forums which have these mod discussion threads are aware of their existence. Frankly for a newbie or infrequent visitor, a RBP or PM to the moderators should suffice. When we receive a question concerning moderation, the DL mods always respond and when possible provide an explanation as to why we took a particular action. Needless to say, there are situations which we cannot discuss what has taken place, especially so when suspensions are issued.

Also I would like to remind everyone that the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread is unique in it's history. It was the first one allowed by Randy on FT when discussion about moderation was not allowed as per the TOS. In fact there was another DL mod discussion thread that Randy closed and never reopened on the DL board.

There were 2 factors that convinced the DL mods at the time to keep the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread going. The first was that there was a violent reaction to having the DL board moderated by many of our members. Secondly the SkyMiles program was in the midst of a drastic reduction in benefits and there was a popular uprising of Medallions taking place. The www.saveskymiles.com movement (which I was a proud member of) was going full blast and the DL moderators had their hands full keeping the board civil and also removing duplicate and triplicate posts.

IMHO the bottom line is that LESS IS MORE and we don't need a forum dedicated to moderation input or placing a mod discussion thread in each forum.

I'm trying to understand how you draw the conclusion in your last paragraph from the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that the mod discussion thread on DL, one of the busiest and sometimes most heated forums on FT, is a Very Good Thing. I agree! The exchange between you, kipper and other DL posters yesterday was, I thought, a model for how well that thread serves to allow posters to both understand AND have input into the day-to-day management of FT. ^

But that it is not a good thing for other forums?

There are other concepts, like allowing embedded images, that made folks nervous. But it was tested in some forums and found to be quite beneficial despite dire predictions.

The same thing seems to have taken place with the moderator discussion threads that have existed in various forums on FT.

Why should great ideas be limited to certain forums and not made broadly available across FT?

Every forum on FT is different as you well know. What has worked on the DL board might not be needed on another forum.

I am totally opposed to having a dedicated forum for moderation input. In addition, if there is a thread on a particular forum for this purpose as we have on the DL board one would think that a longtime member like yourself would trust the judgment of the moderators on those forums as to whether or not we need a sticky. In addition, on forums that do not have these mod discussion threads you should also trust the judgment of those mods as to the need for a thread such as this. BTW, the DL mods could have simply closed down our mod discussion thread in 2003 and used the TOS as our reason but we totally understood the need to have this dialogue with some of our members and opted to keep it open. In my book this is called a judgment call.

If the mods on a particular board decide to start such a thread there would be no argument from me.
The bottom line is that the TB should allow the mods to decide if this is needed and have a little faith in our decision making process.

As I say upthread, I agree with you that best practice seems to be a thread in a forum rather than a dedicated forum. And that sticky-ing these threads is needless.

However, I disagree with the notion that each mod should be able to make up their own rules for 'their' forums. There are doubtlessly judgement calls to be made by mods every day. But I think allowing feedback and collaborative input to day-to-day management is more of a structural call than a judgement call. Or at least it should be.

In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(

The inconsistency both within as well as among forums should, imho, be addressed, implementing a best practice FT-wide so that posters get a consistent and meaningful opportunity for collaborative input site-wide.

If there is a down-side to this, I have yet to see it articulated or demonstrated.

We don't live in a perfect world and no two umpires call balls and strikes the exact same way. There will always be some variance and interpretation of the rules as you well know. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. To date you have not proved it is broken! @:-)

I seriously take issue with this statement. You are fully aware that there are decisions made by moderators that we are not allowed to discuss in public! You are trying to take o2k's comments, changing the context of same to your advantage when what o2k has posted is totally appropriate!!!