Jenbel

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.

Jenbel

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.

kokonutz

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.

Jenbel

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

kokonutz

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.

Jenbel

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?

kokonutz

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!)

Dovster

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"?

kokonutz

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

RSSrsvp

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.

RSSrsvp

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. @:-)

itsaboutthejourney

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.

RSSrsvp

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. @:-)

Dovster

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.

essxjay

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.