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. 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).

I have read that many times on FT. In our dealings over the years, I have always seen you as a straight shooter, so please answer this question: If I post, giving (my side) of how and why I was suspended, haven't I given up any expectation of privacy?

To tell the truth, especially the first suspension I received is one I would love to publicize. Nothing would make me happier than to repost here, the exact e-mail I received, and for the members to judge for themselves if my suspension was justified or completely ridiculous.

I, of course, would have no valid objection if the mods who gave me that suspension were to give any details that I might have ignored. Where then would be the violation of my privacy?

I see where you are coming from, Dov. Did I ever send you the email Randy sent me suspending me? It's a hoot!

But that's not what this proposal is about. This proposal is about making the day-to-day management of FT more responsive to posters by allowing consistent opportunity for collaborative input.

Inconsistent (and sometimes random) suspension and banning standards are a separate issue for another day. As noted elsewhere, I have some ideas to address that, too. But one thing at a time, and starting with something that imho ought to be a non-controversial no-brainer.

Nice try as I have never stated that this should be a sticky thread nor will I speak for the moderators on other boards. Just because we have allowed it to exist on the DL board does not mean that it should be done forum wide. Please remember that my wording is very clear, "if you pursue this issue and prevail". This does not constitute my blessing for your proposed threads!

I haven't posted on this, but I just don't see the problem.

If the thread isn't needed or isn't popular, it will die -- nobody will post to it.

I'm for such a thing until someone can convince me that it's a bad idea.

Dov, the TOS which I am sure that you are well versed on is extremely clear.


Discussing Specific Moderator Actions
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

This, especially if the member who was suspended or disciplined is willing to share their side of the story, is a good example of why some people will think that all moderator actions are hidden. If a member who was suspended is willing to post publically about their suspension, and is willing to allow the moderators to post their perspectives on it as well, why not allow them to do so?

I'm sorry but until the TOS is changed I cannot agree to what you are saying so IMHO it is a moot point.

Incidentally are you also saying that a member should or should not make an attempt by PM to discuss an issue with a moderator or that they should simply be posting their objections to a mod's action on one of these proposed threads without first making an attempt to discuss it in private beforehand?

Yes, that is what the TOS says. It does not mean, however, that the TOS should not be changed.

Remember, in the 1920s there was a prohibition actually written into the US constitution forbidding the sale of alcohol. That was changed and the constitution is a much more difficult document to amend than the TOS.

You are totally correct in your statement. However until it is changed what you are proposing to do will not be allowed.

I'll give you one example of why public discussion is good. Let's say I hate the mega-threading that goes on in the United forum. I have no idea if anyone else feels the same way. And no one else knows that I feel this way. I can't discuss it publicly, so any talk is squirreled away to PM, and the conversation is then controlled by the person who moderates in a way I disagree with. What are the chances that one person is going to change his mind?

Public, open discussion would allow everyone to get a sense of where opinions lie. If I'm the lone mega-thread hater, discussion would die, and I would have to deal. If there was a majority opinion against the practice, solutions could be worked out that would benefit the membership of the forum. This only happens in an open, collaborative setting.

I hope these threads (if they are created) would not be used to ask about specific deletions/suspensions. I do agree those situations are better handled in private. I'm thinking they would be more about larger, more general issues.

I don't think people are disputing that you gave advanced warning of your decision and actions. I think they are upset with the lack of warning that the process was occurring, before those decisions were made.