Which (to you) is more important? Consistency or responsiveness to a forum's posters?

Suppose for a minute the TOS requires posters to "Post your inquiry in a relevant thread. If no such thread exists, start a new thread." Most on FT view this as "requiring" mega-threads. Any new thread on subject X is merged into a single thread. This keeps the forums tidy with information is in a single, easy-to-find thead. While we're "supposing" here, I'll add that the search function has been improved, making it simple to search a mega-thread and quickly find information you need.

But posters in one forum hate mega threads, as demonstrated by posts in the forum's "Discuss how mods can help improve the forum" thread. They would rather see 100 threads on the same topic started by different members, containing the same responses. This is viewed as "friendly" or "more personal" as each member receives individual responses. Should all forums be required to merge into mega-threads?

My question is to see if moderators would be open to it, if the TOS could/would be changed.

I'm not saying not to send a PM, but if you feel your suspension or whatever was very out of line, or you want to let everyone know what you did, so they can learn from your mistakes, and the TOS has been revised to allow for this, why not post it out there for everyone?
What is your opinion of changing the TOS?

By soliciting input from a wide range of people who are in those groups likely to be affected by a change like changing this portion of the TOS, the end result is likely to be something that most can embrace and not feel that it was done without some notice or input from stakeholders.

I personally wouldn't. I've seen too many members presenting what they have done as though they have been wronged - even to the point of bare-facedly lying about what they have done - when they think they can influence the court of public opinion. Many people just cannot accept that their behaviour has been at odds with what we expect on FT.

Sadly, we'd then get people who are pretty negative to mods automatically assuming that the mods are incorrect. We've already seen how the words of moderators are interpreted in this thread by some people to the worst possible meaning.

I don't think it would be good for either members or mods to do this. FT is not about disputes about who did what and who is lying. It's about travel, points and miles.

When everything is done in secrecy, it's easy for people (on both sides) to distort the truth. Allowing some sunlight into the process would be best for both general members and moderators over the long haul.

What is important to me is that posters in every forum have a consistent opportunity to have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis.

So maybe forum A's posters love the mega-threading and don't mind how disjointed they become.

Maybe forum B's posters despise the mega-threading and would prefer that every thread stand even if information is sometimes repeated....maybe the forum is slow enough that this does not bug.

Maybe forum C's posters work with the mods to come up with a system where mega threads are timed, such that a common issue exists in a mega-thread for six months then a new mega-thread on that issue is started for the next six months.

Maybe forum D's posters and mods collaboratively develop something neither you nor I can conceive of alone right here right now.

The beauty of this approach is that it consistently and uniformly lets each forum's posters work directly with each forum's moderators to develop a unique management style that works best for that forum's posters as determined by a collaborative process between the mods and the posters rather than by fiat by the moderators.

Hmmm. And many of us manage to do that without TB mandated threads :confused:

You didn't answer my question, do you feel it is appropriate to simply post away on a public board instead of first trying to resolve the issue privately with the moderator?

For the record I am opposed to changing the TOS.

Or just result in interminable wrangling from those who can never, ever accept that their warnings/suspensions were warranted.

But hey, don't let my direct experience interfere with your perception. I can count on the fingers of one hand the people who have come back and acknowledged they were over the top. Most folks don't respond, while a number will argue until they are blue in the face that somehow, I was wrong. I can also count on the fingers of one hand the number of decisions I've had over-turned.

Were posters consulted in these instances, or was it a unilateral decision by the moderators?

How do the moderators know this is how the majority of the forum wants these things handled?

Number of suspensions overturned is not exactly the metric I'd use to show how well someone is performing as a mod.

How can you possibly know that for sure?

I consider you a very good, conscientious and fair moderator. I believe you try very hard to give the posters in the forums you moderate the sort of management they want. But unless a fully safe and collaborative system is put in place, you can never know for sure that the posters are getting the management they want.

Look at it this way: if you are correct and this system is implemented it will result in one of two things: Either the thread will quickly fall from the front page of the forums you moderate never to be seen again or it will be filled with compliments and kudos on the way the forum is managed because it is done exactly the way the posters want.

Again, there is no down-side potential to this idea. And lots of up-side potential.

No, but quoting it did stop you accusing me that all of those complaining about my actions had a point, which I knew would be the knee jerk position to the point I was making.

Besides, you make complaints about lack of accountability, and then you tell me I should never have a decision over-turned? Seriously? You want accountability, but you expect us to be perfect? :confused:

Because they'd hear from the members if the members were unhappy about how the forum was being run.

Or it will become the hang out ground for the minority who want the forum to be run in a different way, but where the majority don't want that to happen so they'll just spend their time quarterbacking in the thread to no effect, getting increasingly more and more bitter. It's a bit like how TB becomes the hang out place for those bitter about moderation?

You appear to live in a perfect world, where all people are reasonable. That, sadly, is not my experience. Some people just can't and won't accept boundaries - will they koko? ;)

I personally think you are wrong about this.

I think that many (most?) posters are under the (mistaken, btw, according to the current TOS) impression that ANY public discussion of moderation is strictly forbidden. I personally think some mods mistakenly believe this too, btw.

By creating a specific thread for collaborative feedback and discussion of a forum's day-to-day management you will get a robust group dynamic that simply cannot exist via one-to-one PMs. You will also get better participation as posters come to realize that their input is not only allowed, but can make a difference to their FT experience on a daily basis.

Either that or, as I say, the thread will fall away and/or be filled with compliments.

Win-win.