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.