Members are not best served if quiet forums and busy forums cannot be managed differently from each other. Requiring a mod policy discussion thread is only a minor imposition. That discussion thread will help reveal whether forum participants like the way the forum is being managed. Flexibility then is an unqualified benefit.

'Great'? That's quite an assumption.

Lack of trust is the real point of this and other recent threads in this forum. Perhaps that's what really needs to be addressed before any cosmetic or structural changes.

Why is that :( or even surprising? Mods are not automatons.

And yet ... despite the fact of diversity of opinion mods still manage to collaborate just fine and forums still manage to function quite well. Not good enough for you? Why so? Because if their best efforts aren't good enough for you then I have a tough time believing anything they try will be good enough for you.

Right. Well then let's just get rid of all those pesky human posters, with their diversity of perspective and plurality of opinion. Radical, yes, but solves the problem of inconsistent application of the TOS.

Honestly, koko, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of this proposal. It's clear that you wish to finagle around the CD's stated position on the continued separation of TB and moderator staff. But why? How does your personal desire serve The Posters™' interests more than your own?

I think a system where things that affect the public (FT posters) but are done in the dark of night and where people are not allowed to discuss them is broken.
I think there's a lack of trust because things that will affect a great number of posters are done in the dark of night, and if someone dares to ask why something was done, they often are told, "We don't discuss that." That doesn't exactly build a lot of trust in the system, does it?

If you went for a doctor's visit, were told you needed to have a certain procedure done, and when you showed up for that procedure, you were told, "We changed your procedure to XYZ instead," I'd hope you'd question why it was done. If they then told you, "We don't discuss why we changed things, nor do we discuss exactly what this procedure involved," I'd hope that most people would run away from a medical practice like that.

What has been systematically done in the 'dark of night'? I've no idea what you're talking about or what the continued use of this euphemism serves. What specific changes affected you and what did the mod(s) in question say when you contacted them about it? Or are you talking about hypothetical changes? Your clarity is appreciated.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to review FT's guidelines and rules regarding how moderators are supposed to conduct themselves before you make that, "done in the dark of night" comment that is highly inflammatory.


They do moderate their forums and look for rule violations. They may delete and edit posts and close threads without notice. They may discipline and suspend members who fail to adhere to the rules (see Discipline and Appeal for more information).



On-board discussion of moderator decisions - including post deletions and member discipline - is not allowed and will be removed. Members will also be subject to disciplinary action. Similarly, posts announcing a member's return to FlyerTalk after a suspension or ban are not allowed. If you have a question about a moderator action, contact the moderator directly or Carol (SanDiego1k).


+1

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

This is not the first time we have seen moderation threads like this on TB. IMHO it is a veiled attempt to circumvent what has been posted in the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...ions-here.html sticky thread! Frankly you should be discussing this issue with SanDiego1k.

So I guess you would be OK with the doctor publicly discussing his intervention with you.

In the Guidelines and Rules you will also read the following We intervene with individual members and we do not discuss that intervention same as my doctor will not discuss with the public any treatments/procedures he has with me.

You most likely do not believe it and I really do not care anymore but same as a match that I'd be officiating there is more personal satisfaction in getting an indivdual back to posting in the best interests of FlyerTalk. which is facilitating effective discussion, than there is in punishing somebody. @:-)

Yep the internet is filled with the dead carcasses of IBBs that imploded from flame wars. Go back and read the threads from the early day here on FT. My belief it is only luck and the fact that the first 1000 were for the most part ladies and gentlemen

Oy, another conspiracy theory? Really?

I am proposing a recommendation for an amendment to the TOS to be considered by the TB.

As hard as it might be, can we focus on the proposal rather than the personalities (sort of ironic that *I* am the one saying this to some of the *mods* participating here! :))!

Again: I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

There's no point trying to answer that question though, because whatever response the mods give, we'll be accused of trying to be obstructive because we don't want the the threads or what we will say will be ignored because it doesn't fit within your view of what is appropriate (like you've done with RSSrsvp's opinion of whether they are appropriate for all forums - given he is one of a small number of mods with experience of such things, I would have thought his experience would be valuable, but it apparently isn't if it doesn't agree with the perceived wisdom of some on here).

So, given that I have low expectations about the reception, I'm not sure I want to even try to express my concerns. The issue with that is that because a number of people posting on this thread just don't like mods/moderators, anything we say will be used against us...

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!!!