To be fair, Carol, I haven't received a single PM where the suspension / incident occurred after you became Community Director.

So for not being specific about that, I apologize.

I'm sorry. You're right. You were referring to a different process -- forum management, specifically forum subdivision.

It's become clear that members are unaware that mods have a number of tools and additional BB permissions that we don't use often. Merge and delete (threads or posts) are probably the best known examples of built in menu options we may select from to keep the flow of discussion smooth and placement of topics tidy. I imagine those tools seem unremarkable and uncontroversial because they are so common? But that we may also elect to subdivide a forum to keep the flow of discussion smooth and topic placement tidy is somehow controversial or overreaching? Were posters upset because they didn't know the extent of permissions and tools available to us or because they weren't notified in greater detail about what we planned to do? (No, these aren't rhetorical questions; yes, I care about what the answers are.) That we chose to avail ourselves of existing management tools and methods for the explicit purpose of doing our jobs was rational under the circumstances.

As noted, some forums have collaborative input into how the forum is managed on a day-to-day basis. That is not a consistent opportunity.

Hm. Is there a statute of limitations on appeals? I'd like to appeal a couple of my suspensions from 5 or 7 years ago.

I think that's probably it. I also bet posters would have wished to have more input in the process that transformed a forum many were very passionate about.

Note: I'm glad there was a change. TS/S was becoming unreadable. However, it makes me wary about how the combination of the CO/UA forum is going to play out. Will the mods there ask for input on how the members want their forum to be run? Or will they just institute the policies they feel are best.

Right now, considering the TOS, if I wanted to voice any concern about it, I'd be limited to contacting the moderator only. If the moderator didn't respond, or was really rather nasty about it, then my only other option would be to contact the CD.

If the board did have a thread, perhaps I'd post a question there, inquiring as to why a post was deleted, and I would hope that the moderator would post their answer in a polite manner.
How?

This is very common. Some people like to annoy readers, or at the very least they are indifferent to whether their posts annoy readers. When challenged about this, they will often reply "I have a right to post whatever I want". This, I submit, is the hallmark of a value-destroying member. FT is better without such attitudes. If you see any part of yourself in this, please try to re-read your posts and soften them before pressing Submit.

+1

+1 and I am hoping for greater clarity on this issue in a future TOS.

+1

That's a reasonable concern. Which is why the version I posted a day or two ago addresses it:

In other words, the forum's moderators are free to constrain or prohibit discussion of specific past actions as needed to avoid excessive moderation of the thread about moderation. In my experience, it takes only two weeks for members to learn to post within new constraints. Two weeks of diligent coaching of posters can yield long-term peace in the forum.

So hypothetically speaking if the board does have a mod discussion thread like the DL forum and you asked the question on that thread and the mod gave you a polite answer that still wasn't to your liking would the issue end there?

Not answering for Jen but in high volume forums such as TS/S or OMNI the hundreds (or thousands, depending) of RBPs mods receive throughout the year obviate the need for additional consultation on most decisions. Mods in larger forums also receive hundreds of unsolicited PMs throughout the year, some of which provide detailed feedback or deployable suggestions. Other than maintaining a forum glossary and applying the TOS, TS/S mods left it to member discretion to create the kind of content they felt was useful. During the run up to and in the aftermath of National Opt Out Day, members built and maintained databases, launch protest campaigns, collaborated on leaflet designs and on and on -- all without input, permission or interference from mods. Likewise, sometimes it makes sense for mods to make unilateral decisions about the forums they moderate. There's nothing nefarious behind such decisions.

Because they're not shy about using the RBP button or sending PMs to communicate their desires and complaints!

With respect, this proposal is about collaborative input. What you describe is mostly one way and/or one-on-one input.

Relying only on RBPs and PMs does not give posters the opportunity to build on each others' ideas. And I imagine it is overwhelmingly negative. Looking at the DL and OMNI moderation discussion threads, I see many positive contributions by posters in response to questions and complaints by other posters. That sort of collaborative effort and interaction builds bonds and a sense of forum ownership among the posters and legitimacy for the management decisions that are ultimately taken.

"Hypothetically," I'd think it did end there, at least on my part.

I'm not sold on the consistency as virtue argument but let's humor you by supposing that I am. :)

1) Member PMs mod(s) with suggestion(s) on how to better manage the forum.
2) Mod(s) reply back.
3) *bang* Collaboration in its most atomic form -- a method readily and consistently available across all forums to all registered members.

Whether or how discussions evolve beyond the atomic depend on more factors than TB can reasonably address in a single proposal. If it comes to pass that the CD recommends all moderated forums institute some kind of mod discussion thread then we have an additional method of collaboration to the mix. To suggest that what is already in place is neither collaborative nor consistent is, respectfully, uninformed opinion.

Thanks for hanging in there with me, DC, and permitting me the opportunity reply, ask for more clarification and reply some more. Also appreciate your candor about the change and I hope it keeps working for you.

If I had a nickel for every comment about censorship, violation of First Amendment rights, etc., I'd be ... rolling in quarters. @:-)

+2.

Those threads required an enormous amount of time, well above what we already give. Not every mod or group of mods has it to spare.

Randy was a busy man and was not always as responsive as many of us would have liked him to be. And being the person who likes to focus on the positive, he was very averse to challenging or reprimanding moderators much to the frustration of a small percentage of members who presented cases of moderator abuse.

Today, SanDiego1K is much more engaged and seems to be making decisions at a faster pace, so I think that a lot of this mistrust of moderators is from the past. That said, I strongly believe that lack of transparency is one of the negative aspects of FlyerTalk and hope proposals such as this one will become policy. I'd also be for a customer service oriented feedback system for moderators. A quick note on why something was deleted should be policy for moderators to send when taking action.

So "hypothetically", do you think you would consider my typical type of response polite when this "hypothetical" question was asked?