Let's start with the TS/S split. Not specific moderator action or decisions, but that was, for the most part, done in the dark of night, without telling most posters.

Yes, TOS currently says that specific moderator actions cannot be discussed. My point is that because specific moderator actions cannot be discussed, it is all done in the dark of night. Isn't that pretty much the definition of it? No one can know what happens, because the TOS prohibits it. How would you describe it?

Why do mods not want the threads? I realize that in some forums, the threads will have very little, if any activity, and as such, will very quickly drop from the first page when one views the forum.

Others will be very active, and others will see moderate activity.

I'm with koko, in that I don't see what the downside is of giving people a place to post their questions or concerns about moderation of a specific forum. If the forum "doesn't need one," then the thread will sit without use.

I am open to RSSrsvp's opinion that they may not be right for each forum. My response is: isn't that better decided by the posters of that forum by their use or non-use of it, rather than having the forum's moderators speak on behalf of all of that forum's posters?

So, yes, I am utterly open to a dialogue on all aspects of this proposal. But, as always, I'm not just to going to accept opinions without questioning and exploring them, typically from the perspective of empowering the posters as much as possible to create the best FlyerTalk we can be.

So what you are saying is that you COULD answer this question...it's just that you don't care to?

Personally I like to discuss end results but you are seemingly fascinated with processes and dark of the night helicopters.

So what was wrong with the split. No question a new IBB was started in June and now has 200 members. No question the Practical forum is now beginning since September to get useful information available for somebody traveling. (As a footnote 575 individual posters have posted at least once in that forum since Labor day reopening.)

But I guess it doesn't matter to you since you seem to think it was a moderator action when in fact it was an IB administrators and CD action. The alternative as explained to me when asked to volunteer by PM was to eliminate the forum in its entirety. I really have no idea why the IB administrators and the Community Director did not choose a different method or why they did not ask you to assist maybe you can send a PM to admin.

Not going to beat around the bush here but I am extremely proud for the accomplishements that the dozen or so accomplished during the spring and summer. In fact I feel it is one of the best things I have ever done in giving back to FlyerTalk

I have no intentions of getting into the factors that led up to the TS/S split but it was quite obvious to all that something had to be done about that forum which was a nightmare for anyone trying to post a legitimate question.

Getting back to this "done in the dark of night" comment, no matter what is said you will still use that as a comeback so basically this is starting to turn into a witch hunt!!!

And that would be a perfect example of why I don't want to get too involved in this.

You immediately turn around and accuse us of not wanting the threads, after I've predicted that would happen, but did not actually say anywhere in my post that was the feeling.

Thanks for proving my point.

I have my reasons as to why it can be a bad idea. But as kipper has just completely proved my point, I don't see the point of even attempting that dialogue, as it will only be misconstrued.

Well if you are not even willing to discuss your specific concerns it is impossible for anyone to consider them...or take them into account.

So I am left still waiting for someone, anyone to articulate a down-side to this proposal.

There have been several down sides articulate to this proposal. You appear to be ignoring the ones out there already.

Help me out here.

A forum for moderation discussion is a bad idea, a thread is better: criticism accepted.

A sticky is too intrusive: criticism accepted.

The only other comment I have seen (several times) is that it should be up to the moderator to decide if and what kind of moderation feedback thread should be on 'their' forum. That's an opnion, not a down-side. And I simply respectfully disagree with this opinion based on a few reasons:
1) The posters can decide for themselves if the thread is needed by use or non-use
2) It may well be that the forums that could make the most use of such a thread have mods unwilling to allow one
3) There should be consistent and transparent opportunity for collaborative poster feedback on the day-to-day management of FT across all forums because to do otherwise will lead to confusion, misunderstandings and ill feelings

If I have missed any articulated down-sides to this proposal please do me a favor and point them out to me. I am open to the notion that my reading is indeed overly-selective.

The one size fits all approach being pushed here.

How does a thread to discuss the (visible) 4-5 moderation actions I make a year in the VS forum actually help, when the members already feel they can raise concerns with me?

How does having a thread to discuss the moderation of the Antarctica forum actually help at all?

Have you considered the possibility that the folks on VS forum might (just might!) welcome and enjoy the opportunity for collaborative input if it was provided? You seem very confident, but how can you know what is in their minds?

And if the thread is of no use to the posters there then it will quietly fade off the front page an into oblivion. Nothing lost for the effort or opportunity.

And even if so, how about one day when you are no longer the benevolent moderator of VS. Perhaps then such a thread would have more utility and it will be there for the posters then.

Again, I see no down-side to offering posters this opportunity in each forum over a 'one-size-does-not-fit-all' complaint.

Only up-side in terms of consistency and opportunity as the posters will make the thread fit however they see fit (even if that means ignoring it!)

Now I am completely confused. As far as I know, 02K did, indeed, discuss her decision in public. In fact, she did so on the thread she closed:

Moreover, if you look at the "Premature Evacuation" thread, you will see that nobody asked why the thread was closed. There was no need to -- O2K had given her reason.

Two posters, however, stated that they felt it would be a better memorial to the OP to allow the thread to keep open instead fading into oblivion.

Given all of that, how can this fall into the category of decisions "we are not allowed to discuss in public"? :confused:

Upon reflection....would it help to have a threshold of activity on a forum to implement the forum moderation thread?

Dov, that was not what kokonutz implied by the post copied below.

My comments to kokonutz didn't have to do with the fact that o2k did make a comment on the closed thread but that kokonutz was implying that o2k wasn't willing to give any feedback which as you can see is totally misleading.

By the way, this might come as a shock to you but the DL thread we have been referencing to in many of our posts was not started by a moderator. It was started by RobertS975 a longtime member of the board. At the time the DL mods made the decision to keep the thread open even though we could have simply closed it as per the TOS.

Therefore and not to open a Pandora's Box, I submit to you that any FT member could simply start a similar thread on any forum and if that board's moderators feel that it is appropriate they can simply leave it open. This would not require any action by the TB. @:-)

Just as any successful business knows, listening to and providing channels of feedback on customer service is key. It sounds like some mods are opposed to any effort to give them constructive feedback. If for example the VS forum was pleased with the moderation and gave examples why you'd think the moderator would love that feedback @:-)

Which leads to....

With much respect to RSSrsvp, comments such as first line are the result of the two harshly worded red paragraphs you cite. The lack of transparency, lack of ways to even get a reason why something was edited/removed/locked lead to dark of night type comments.

Example: I have a PM from a moderator threatening to suspend me for "stalking" if I make another response to a question about their actions. Having the ability to (politely & respectfully) discuss the situation in a dedicated thread of moderation would provide a more neutral forum to resolve the issue while educating the larger FlyerTalk community about the decision making process. This greater understanding from both sides will improve our community and reduce the need for moderator intervention in other threads.

I simply quoted what appears in the TOS which we are instructed to follow as mods. Please don't shoot the messenger! :)

If you receive a PM from a moderator that states you are stalking another member this is a discussion that should be held in private between that forum's moderators and you. It is simply not fair to the other member involved to have a public dialogue and you know it. If you are not happy with the result you can always appeal to SanDiego1k who is as fair as they come. However I always fall back on the saying, where there is smoke there is fire. I have had several cases over the years where people have stalked other members and were in total denial when confronted by a moderator. @:-)

I don't like speaking for kokonutz but I believe he was referring to the post O2K made on the "Premature" thread in which she said she would not discuss her decision on the thread but would by PM.

Quite honestly, I found her post odd as nobody had asked her to discuss her decision. She had explained why she closed the other thread and two posters simply expressed their opinions that it would have been a better memorial to leave it open.

One could make a similar observation from the counter perspective:Calls for greater transparency, accountability and other populist 'goods' imply those attributes are somehow missing or deficient in current forum management. Are they really? And why is more normatively better than the levels we've got?


I think you're conflating the prohibition on discussing specific actions such as post edits/deletions, mod-to-member PMs, individual member warnings and suspensions with discussion about forum management tools (such as splitting). To be fair, few members ask about the latter because they don't realize that there's a distinction or where the the line might be. I personally don't mind answering PMs about why I moved, merged, renamed or closed threads or why we chose to split TS/S, but only to the extent that I can without violating the directive on member privacy, i.e. disciplinary action.

For the record, prior to shuttering TS/S for reorganization we posted a sticky about it, stating the dates of closure and our reasons for the split. To characterize that notice as 'dark of night' activity puzzles me. Additionally, there is precedent for mod discretion in temporarily closing, splitting or merging forums -- OMNI (by Randy back in 20xx), OMNIlite/PR (more recently) and Midwest/Frontier (by me in August), respectively, come to mind. TS/S is not a special case because of the resulting uproar, it was a hotbed of discontent to begin with.

Or trying to moderate.

The volume and tenor of the forum was closing in on a day when it could no longer be moderated. There wasn't enough time in the day to do it properly. The choices really were to to shut it down for good or change the structure to accommodate the needs of different types of posters. We choose the bold solution (listening to our members) rather than taking easy way out (cutting and running). Why the need to second guess our judgment, the CD's and IBs at this junction is mystifying.

We could ask the same of you with respect to what The Posters want. And there's the epistemological conundrum.

If you can't respect mods making inferences to the best conclusion about what's best for their forum(s) then we're back to the underlying issue of unresolved mutual mistrust. Until that's fleshed out the rest of this discussion is pointless.

Likewise mods do not require TB sanction to initiate (or close) discussions of moderation within their own forums, viz. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/...t-discuss.html.

Thanks for starting this thread Kokonutz. While I don't believe that every forum needs a thread of this nature, there should be at least one thread where discussion can take place about concerns that general members have.

kokonutz, based on the above two comments I submit to you that this topic is now a moot point. Frankly this is much to do about nothing!!!

FWIW, I have floated in the private TalkBoard forum the idea to mandate a non-sticky thread for discussion of moderation policy and practices in the forum excluding any discussion of specific past actions but allowing discussion of hypothetical future actions. The second part of this idea is that each forum's moderators would be allowed (as apparently they already are) to allow discussion of specific past actions to whatever extent and under whatever ground rules the forum's moderators see fit, subject to constraints, if any, set by the Community Director.

This version is both innocuous and flexible, IMHO. It could promote valuable feedback for some forums.

I submit that it is not the mod's forum. It is the posters' forum.

Or at least it should be. In koko-world it would be. That's what this proposal is all about.

YMMV.

Different sense and referent. (But you knew that. ;))

"... the forums they moderate." Better?

^^ Although I'm guessing your excellent proposal will go over like a lead balloon. All but a few of the moderators I've met & interacted with are wonderful, fair, approachable people, but there are others who seem very much afraid of transparency.

I suppose. But I still submit that it ought to be up to the posters in a forum to decide if they'd like to use a moderation thread than up to that forum's moderators to decide if they'd like to have a moderation thread in that forum.

I still have not seen a down-side articulated to giving all (active) forums' posters the opportunity of using a moderation thread.

^

That opinion would earn you a severe reprimand in one forum that I frequent...(or that I used to frequent to be more correct).

So you're not thinking of requiring the Mods in that forum to participate in that thread and to answer posters complaints?

Windfall???? If you think anyone is actually profiting from this, you have no clue.

The smashing success was the manner in which the TS/S moderators managed to alienate so many of their users so quickly. And no, there was disciplinary action in regard to me -- I simply took note of the rapidly souring atmosphere (esp. the accumulating body count) and chose to quit posting there. It had reached the point where it was no longer worthy of my contribution.

Travel Underground was created about three weeks later when I was informed that "It is never cool to call out a mod.". In the isolated environment that many FT moderators seem to create for themselves, over time moderation -- and what the moderators want -- becomes an end in itself at the expense of the members. I've seen this happen a number of times over the years in several forums.

The only way this is ever going to be dealt with is to make the moderators answerable to TalkBoard and shine a lot more sunlight into the process. As it is, you have an elected board that is little more than another FT in-crowd. Give TalkBoard some teeth and made the moderators accountable.

To the best of my knowledge, no member is required to participate in any thread. Some TB members, in fact, rarely post in TB Topics threads.

That does not mean there would be no value to a thread discussing moderation of a particular forum (or, indeed, threads discussing moderation in general).

If Poster A brings up a good point on such a forum, he will most likely be answered with at least one of the following (and perhaps all of them, depending on how many moderators are involved):

1. A respectful response to the point the poster made, either agreeing or disagreeing with him, and outlining the moderator's view of the issue.

2. A snarky response demonstrating that the moderator feels that he is way above any possible disagreement and that the poster is guilty of lese majeste for daring to question and/or disagree with him.

3. No response at all.

Still, by having expressed his own opinion, Poster A will have brought up a point which other members may not have considered. That, in itself, is valuable.

Moreover, the type of response that the moderator makes will reveal a lot about that particular moderator. This, too, is valuable. Indeed, a sufficient number of "I don't give a crap about you" replies from a moderator (or even lack of replies) might make whoever is responsible for moderation -- be it TB, a group of mods, or the CD -- decide that the moderator in question is not an asset to FT and should no longer continue in his positition.

On a different matter which has been raised here, it is not really true that any poster can start such a thread. Yes, it was permitted on the Delta Forum, but might not be on others. In fact, by attempting to start such a thread the poster could well find himself losing his posting rights for having discussed moderation.

Well stated, Dovster.

Indeed. That goes to show an issue arising from inconsistency of TOS application. Yet the attempted defense of inconsistency in TOS application is based on "personalities". That sort of inconsistency in application encourages creation of ghettos and cliques on FT and personalization of discussions, all of which are a factor in fostering unfriendly environments.

Perhaps that point (of a chilling effect upon a significant proportion of the contributions/contributors) was the desired outcome even as TB wasn't involved in undoing the forum as it was. This way has also had some other consequences including that which has not made TOS enforcement a more consistent matter with less personalization in TOS application.

TB is also likely to be little more than a reflection of an FT in-crowd, although it's also likely to get some "polarizing personalities" as well.

The Community Director position has some teeth and is there to make the moderators accountable, and that's not likely to change. So making a limited group of FTers accountable to yet another party might end up fostering a situation of "accountable to everyone = (or leading to) accountable to no one". Just something to consider.

Addressing only one thing & speaking as a FTer, not a TB member. I'm glad for the split of TS/S. I had quit going there looking for info because of the utter vitirol & the hijacking of threads. Heck, it made OmniPR look like a piece of cake. :eek: I'm guessing there are others like me as well. So while some will leave FT over the split (which is their right), some will start frequenting TS/S again.

Cheers.

As a member of the TB, this concerns me deeply. If current TOS alienates posters enough to go start their own forums, that could end up being bad, bad news for the future of FT.

If, say, enough UA posters get fed up with mega-threading, they could go start a board, etc, etc. These issue-specific boards have a spotty success record, but just the fact that people feel motivated to go start them tells us we have some work to do.

Meanwhile, one of the 'selling points' of Milepoint is that they are 'friendly,' a thinly veiled assertion of having a different approach to moderation. Of course, the approach there is more in the paid staff direction. A non-starter here.

I think Mike as well as the DL mods and the Cbuzz mods and the old OMNI mods have given us a terrific model to follow in terms of giving posters more ownership over the forums they frequent by allowing collaborative input to day-to-day management.

FT has always been an IBB leader, and in the competitive world of mile travel and points IBBs, this feature would really set FT apart as a cut above in terms of user-friendliness and responsiveness. ^

lol, no, I can't require anyone to do anything. What am I going to do, suspend mods who don't participate!? ;)

No, all the TB can do (right now) is make recommendations regarding the TOS and forum structure. But I would like to think that the mods would all be not only willing but happy to engage in constructive, collaborative feedback from the posters they serve on the forums they moderate.

koko, I would like to point out to you that although the DL mods were the first to allow this type of mod discussion thread many years ago and we think of ourselves as being pretty lenient we would not hesitate to delete or simply refuse to answer certain questions concerning moderation that would violate the privacy of other members. Therefore, even if you pursue this issue and prevail you should also warn our members that not everything that they question will receive a response from the mods.

What happens in Vegas stays in Vegas! :)

Understood. Does the bolded part below contained in my original proposed amendment address your concern?

Discussing Specific Forum Moderator Actionsion
Each forum contains a stickied thread for discussion of that forum's moderation decisions and actions. These threads exist to collaboratively discuss and improve moderation in that forum. On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed in these threads only. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, However, abusive and/or uncivil posts will be deleted. posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after aDiscussion of individual posters' suspension or ban are not allowed in these threads. If you have a question about a moderator action, you may also contact the moderator directly or Carol the Community Director (SanDiego1k).