Should there be a forum or threads or <insert your idea> for moderation feedback?
 

The TalkBoard is tasked with making recommendations for the creation and eliminating forums and TOS amendments.

In this thread: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...l-you-why.html

a prolonged discussion took place regarding how to make the day-to-day management of FT more responsive to posters and poster input.

Among the suggestions was a forum dedicated to moderation input. Such a forum exists on other boards such as http://www.travelunderground.org/index.php

On that forum there is a section specifically for discussion of moderation. There exists there a healthy and open dialogue about moderation on the board. I am not certain, but I think that 'moderated' posts go there as well, so all can see what is being moderated out of the main forums.

The approach is: moderation actions will never be taken in secret; that way everyone can learn from them.

Meanwhile, on an ad hoc basis, some FT moderators have created threads within the forums they moderate to accept feedback on day-to-day management.

These include (but are not limited to):

Moderators Guilty of Premature Evacuation

The Merged Merged Threads Thread

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni/...t-discuss.html

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/commu...-type-dos.html

To me, the problem with this ad hoc approach is that it requires a moderator willing to allow (or start) such threads and ends up providing different levels of poster input into the day-to-day operation of FT based on whatever forum one happens to be in.

So my question is whether it makes sense for the TB to recommend the creation of a forum where poster input is allowed on day-to-day management where things like mega-threading, best practices and general rules can take place?

Or if perhaps there should be a standardized thread in each forum for such input?

Or some other method to publicly discuss these matters?

Or if this discussion should continue to only take place (in some instances) at the discretion of the moderator of the specific forum or (in other instances) in the specific instances the moderators care to collect feedback, leaving all other questions and discussions about day-to-day management to PM, email and other IBBs where FT moderation is openly discussed (ie, the status quo)?

Any and all input welcome, AFAIAC. ^

ignoring everything else - even if there was such a thread in every forum, i dont see how moderators could be forced to participate. related >
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...orp-forum.html

Is Premature Evacuation when you cannot make it to the toilet in time ?

Anyway, I find that all the moderated threads are done in secret unless you count "we deleted unnecessary posts that we did not like and added no value in our opinion" added as a post.

I believe that it depends on the what the community in a particular forum wants or needs, not whether or not a moderator is “willing” to launch threads requesting feedback.

FlyerTalk moderators — by my observation, anyway, and not just because I happen to be a FlyerTalk moderator — generally do care about the FlyerTalk members whom they serve and want to provide them with the best experience possible. Otherwise, what is the point of volunteering to become a moderator?

Also, not all discussion needs to be public: FlyerTalk members also send private communications to moderators with their ideas, concerns or suggestions.

While I believe — and always have believed — that openness and transparency should be encouraged, I am not convinced that having an entity recommend or dictate this openness and transparency is the best solution.

I could be wrong...

Certainly public input and discussions having a standardized home would not preclude private discussions as well. ^

I would like to see a thread on moderation as a sticky in each forum, as I think that the members of each forum are the best ones to comment. A sticky would be easy for members to find, rather than sending them to a different forum to comment on moderation.

That's a start anyway.

:D :p

Your description is correct, although I will confess to taking immediate action a couple times. One I regretted & posted about it; the other involved removing a derogatory reference to a young woman in the news, however, no "disciplinary action" was taken in that case either.

In six months we've suspended ZERO real members at Travel Underground. Perhaps half a dozen forum spammers have been put on ice.

What we've discovered at Travel Underground is that people respond (sometimes reluctantly, but they do respond) if you apply enough just effort to effect the desired behavior. It keeps our best & most active members contributing productively, and they are worth the time & effort.

And yes, I do read every post -- about 17,000 to date. If your moderators can't do the job, you need moderators interested enough in the job to get it done.

Someone (kipper?) asked how many were disengaged from TS/S after the changes. About 200 have shown up at Travel Underground, and they continue to arrive. Many more have probably disengaged but not made the switch. Our annualized rate of pageviews runs 700k - 1M, depending on how much TSA stupidity is in the news.

These users and all this activity gladly would have remained at TS/S were it not for the ill-advised changes that were made there.

TS/S, on the other hand, is just a shell of what it used to be. What's most ironic is that the two FlyerTalkers who whined the loudest about the old TS/S still don't grace the "new" TS/S with their participation, even though it's been destroyed to their liking.

This is my initial favorite.

I do. Carol could add this requirement to the moderator's counterpart to the TOS. This would not be something the TB should formally recommend, but if a consensus develops on this thread I'm sure the idea will be thoroughly considered by the moderators and by Carol.

This is EXACTLY how we do it on the Southwest forum, where you used to hang out a lot. It's difficult to sustain as a forum gets large, but it's worth the effort. It's much easier to keep the garden weed-free than to remove weeds from an overgrown garden.

My perspective:

Congratulations on your windfall, Mike. I really do wish you well and hope your board continues to be a smashing success. ^

After watching the Delta moderation thread in action today, I am beginning to lean that way was well.

I'm certain the TB could come up with a recommendation to amend the TOS to create these threads, preferably as stickies and with clear titles....

Something like this:

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).

Given that some members have complained about too many stickies at the top of some forums, I'm not sure a sticky thread would be a workable solution.

Besides, often stickies are the least-looked-at threads in a forum. The eye seems to naturally skip all the administrative junk at the top of the page and jump right down to the meat of the forum.

I don't like the idea that it floats and can be pushed several pages down, because I think it might make it more difficult to find for users.

I appreciate that a few members here think that this is a major, major issue. But I defer to Canarsie's experience:

In one of the busier forums on FT, there's a few posts each month (on average) on this subject. Certainly not worthy of sticky status, IMHO. Ignoring the arguments for and against whether this type of venue should exist, it appears that where it does exist, it serves to show that this is not a major issue for the vast majority of posters.

I beg to differ with you as the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread always manages to float back to the top of the board.

And yet in some forums, if you insert a sticky, you'll get complaints about the moderators stickying something else in the thread which was done to improve their experience.

So while you personally may not like that idea, we do need to consider how all the other members of FT - aside from yourself - who may not even be aware of this idea will react if it should happen.

Additionally, I look at this as an idea, and just think it's a hammer to crack a nut. So I have to have a thread so that members can complain about the 3-4 visible moderator decisions I make in a year on Virgin Flying Club. Really?

There's a mistake in critical thinking here, that one size fits all across all forums. It doesn't. So you'll have some forums where the users of those forums will resent the intrusion of another sticky, and you've got some where the amount of visible moderator activity is miniscule... still I'm sure the users of the Antarctica forum will be happy to have a thread to discuss all the moderator decisions that occur in that forum ;)

I also think the balance is wrong - complaining in public seems to be considered more vital than actually talking to the mods about it. Why wouldn't you want to encourage dialogue between the mods and the members in the first instance?

Oh yes, I suspect because this is all about some people on TB being able to see all the complaints which are being made about moderators, so they can gather more grist to their mill..... It also allows TB to begin to insert themselves into the conversation - and we already know that is an aim of some at the moment.

I really hate, this 'one size fits all' approach - it completely ignores the diversity in communities we have on FT. That's not being very representative of the members.

Most forums have links to popular permanent threads posted in one of the stickies. Therefore I favor floating the proposed threads.

The situation with sticky threads reminds me of the 1970s and 198s phone books. Since virtually every house had a phone book, advocates of every stripe insisted that various bits of vital information be included in the phone book. And where did they put it? At the front of the book, of course.

After several years of this, the "front of the book" grew to over 50 pages. You couldn't find anything in there without flipping dozens of pages. An initially reasonable idea turned out to be practically worthless in the end.

The only reason I knew of that thread was because it was mentioned elsewhere. Had it not been mentioned there, I'd not have known about it, and obviously would not have known to search for it.

It seems to work well enough as is. I wouldn't welcome making it a sticky since I don't see how doing so would improve the user experience. If anything, making a sticky of it would increase the chances of missing DL threads of greater interest to me. If a matter arises that warrants use of that thread, people seem to discover it or get pointed in its direction somehow or another.

To answer the thread's headline question, that could be a topic for "Only Community Director" forum (a sort of successor forum to "Only Randy Petersen"). However, there seems to be a desire to keep an OCD forum (no pun intended) off the table.

I happen to agree with you as unless it's (for example), "Reporter wants to put you on TV" or something similar, it's gonna get missed. I don't know if this will work either but perhaps a thread here in TB Topics as this way the thread is in one place (with that thread made a sticky) with an e-mail sent to members the way TalkMail is sent. It's still a leading the horse to water situation but at least it's been communicated to all members. I dunno, just a thought...

That's good input. I guess there are pros and cons to both floating and sticky.

But I think if the threads all have the same very clear title in all forums then everyone will know to look for them or can be told to do so. Something like "Official X Forum Moderation Discussion Thread." The first post could be the TOS that is developed around the threads. In such a case, I think floating ones would work. That was how the OMNI moderation discussion thread worked and ime it worked pretty well.

This is not about complaining in public. It's about allowing posters to collaborate with moderators to better understand and have better, more interactive input into moderation in that forum.

Putting one in each forum ensures consistent opportunities for that collaboration, understanding and input.

Why would a moderator not want that sort of opportunity? It has proven quite effective across several forums, including in Cbuzz which you yourself moderate! Your commercial do thread was brilliant and quite effective. This is simply formalizing that sort of opportunity. ^

Firstly, no black helicopters circling here. Just trying to improve the poster experience using best practices already developed and tested across FT forums. This proposal would not insert the TB into the conversation, it would insert a forum's posters into the conversation!

I don't think it will be one size fits all at all. I imagine some moderation threads will be quite dormant. Others quite active. They will evolve to serve the unique needs of that forum and its moderators. They will help posters understand moderation and help moderators understand posters. It's a win-win!

You don't seem to have understood that the Cbuzz thread was about a very specific topic we needed to seek feedback on. The purpose of that thread has been a bit mischaracterised in this debate. Indeed, included in the OP was the statement:
You seem to be suggesting a specific question we asked is somehow akin to a general discussion on moderation.

The approach has not been successful on all forums it's been tried on. Again, that one size doesn't fit all mentality.

Well you asked a specific question and you got constructive, collaborative feedback that led to better understanding by the posters and more responsive moderation based on what the posters wanted.

Why limit that sort of constructive input, collaboration and outcome?

Can you provide specific examples and outcomes?

First of all I am a firm believer that less is more. Especially so in the case of sticky threads. Anyone that is a board regular on forums which have these mod discussion threads are aware of their existence. Frankly for a newbie or infrequent visitor, a RBP or PM to the moderators should suffice. When we receive a question concerning moderation, the DL mods always respond and when possible provide an explanation as to why we took a particular action. Needless to say, there are situations which we cannot discuss what has taken place, especially so when suspensions are issued.

Also I would like to remind everyone that the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread is unique in it's history. It was the first one allowed by Randy on FT when discussion about moderation was not allowed as per the TOS. In fact there was another DL mod discussion thread that Randy closed and never reopened on the DL board.

There were 2 factors that convinced the DL mods at the time to keep the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/delta...vacuation.html thread going. The first was that there was a violent reaction to having the DL board moderated by many of our members. Secondly the SkyMiles program was in the midst of a drastic reduction in benefits and there was a popular uprising of Medallions taking place. The www.saveskymiles.com movement (which I was a proud member of) was going full blast and the DL moderators had their hands full keeping the board civil and also removing duplicate and triplicate posts.

IMHO the bottom line is that LESS IS MORE and we don't need a forum dedicated to moderation input or placing a mod discussion thread in each forum.

I'm trying to understand how you draw the conclusion in your last paragraph from the rest of your post.

You seem to be saying that the mod discussion thread on DL, one of the busiest and sometimes most heated forums on FT, is a Very Good Thing. I agree! The exchange between you, kipper and other DL posters yesterday was, I thought, a model for how well that thread serves to allow posters to both understand AND have input into the day-to-day management of FT. ^

But that it is not a good thing for other forums?

There are other concepts, like allowing embedded images, that made folks nervous. But it was tested in some forums and found to be quite beneficial despite dire predictions.

The same thing seems to have taken place with the moderator discussion threads that have existed in various forums on FT.

Why should great ideas be limited to certain forums and not made broadly available across FT?

Every forum on FT is different as you well know. What has worked on the DL board might not be needed on another forum.

I am totally opposed to having a dedicated forum for moderation input. In addition, if there is a thread on a particular forum for this purpose as we have on the DL board one would think that a longtime member like yourself would trust the judgment of the moderators on those forums as to whether or not we need a sticky. In addition, on forums that do not have these mod discussion threads you should also trust the judgment of those mods as to the need for a thread such as this. BTW, the DL mods could have simply closed down our mod discussion thread in 2003 and used the TOS as our reason but we totally understood the need to have this dialogue with some of our members and opted to keep it open. In my book this is called a judgment call.

If the mods on a particular board decide to start such a thread there would be no argument from me.
The bottom line is that the TB should allow the mods to decide if this is needed and have a little faith in our decision making process.

As I say upthread, I agree with you that best practice seems to be a thread in a forum rather than a dedicated forum. And that sticky-ing these threads is needless.

However, I disagree with the notion that each mod should be able to make up their own rules for 'their' forums. There are doubtlessly judgement calls to be made by mods every day. But I think allowing feedback and collaborative input to day-to-day management is more of a structural call than a judgement call. Or at least it should be.

In fact, looking at the DL thread today, it appears that not even every mod of the DL forum has the same view of allowing collaborative feedback in that thread. :(

The inconsistency both within as well as among forums should, imho, be addressed, implementing a best practice FT-wide so that posters get a consistent and meaningful opportunity for collaborative input site-wide.

If there is a down-side to this, I have yet to see it articulated or demonstrated.

We don't live in a perfect world and no two umpires call balls and strikes the exact same way. There will always be some variance and interpretation of the rules as you well know. If it isn't broke, don't fix it. To date you have not proved it is broken! @:-)

I seriously take issue with this statement. You are fully aware that there are decisions made by moderators that we are not allowed to discuss in public! You are trying to take o2k's comments, changing the context of same to your advantage when what o2k has posted is totally appropriate!!!

Members are not best served if quiet forums and busy forums cannot be managed differently from each other. Requiring a mod policy discussion thread is only a minor imposition. That discussion thread will help reveal whether forum participants like the way the forum is being managed. Flexibility then is an unqualified benefit.

'Great'? That's quite an assumption.

Lack of trust is the real point of this and other recent threads in this forum. Perhaps that's what really needs to be addressed before any cosmetic or structural changes.

Why is that :( or even surprising? Mods are not automatons.

And yet ... despite the fact of diversity of opinion mods still manage to collaborate just fine and forums still manage to function quite well. Not good enough for you? Why so? Because if their best efforts aren't good enough for you then I have a tough time believing anything they try will be good enough for you.

Right. Well then let's just get rid of all those pesky human posters, with their diversity of perspective and plurality of opinion. Radical, yes, but solves the problem of inconsistent application of the TOS.

Honestly, koko, I'm beginning to doubt the sincerity of this proposal. It's clear that you wish to finagle around the CD's stated position on the continued separation of TB and moderator staff. But why? How does your personal desire serve The Posters™' interests more than your own?

I think a system where things that affect the public (FT posters) but are done in the dark of night and where people are not allowed to discuss them is broken.
I think there's a lack of trust because things that will affect a great number of posters are done in the dark of night, and if someone dares to ask why something was done, they often are told, "We don't discuss that." That doesn't exactly build a lot of trust in the system, does it?

If you went for a doctor's visit, were told you needed to have a certain procedure done, and when you showed up for that procedure, you were told, "We changed your procedure to XYZ instead," I'd hope you'd question why it was done. If they then told you, "We don't discuss why we changed things, nor do we discuss exactly what this procedure involved," I'd hope that most people would run away from a medical practice like that.

What has been systematically done in the 'dark of night'? I've no idea what you're talking about or what the continued use of this euphemism serves. What specific changes affected you and what did the mod(s) in question say when you contacted them about it? Or are you talking about hypothetical changes? Your clarity is appreciated.

Perhaps you should actually take the time to review FT's guidelines and rules regarding how moderators are supposed to conduct themselves before you make that, "done in the dark of night" comment that is highly inflammatory.


They do moderate their forums and look for rule violations. They may delete and edit posts and close threads without notice. They may discipline and suspend members who fail to adhere to the rules (see Discipline and Appeal for more information).



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 (SanDiego1k).


+1

This is not about me, or the TB taking over moderation.

It's about a lack of consistency combined with a lack of transparency leading to a feeling that poster input on the day-to-day management of FT is unwelcome in all but the most private of formats (individual PM). This leads to needless ill will and misunderstandings.

The forum moderation threads approach I propose allows each forum's posters (not the TB!) to make of it what they will. Some might not care to participate in the threads. In some forums the thread might disappear off the first page never to be seen again! In other forums it might have robust discussions. Some might focus on specific examples as 'teachable moments' while others might want to focus on meta issues like mega-threading. So long as the discussion remains civil and about issues rather than people, it can only lead to better communication and understanding between posters and moderators and in many cases improvement to the day-to-day management of a forum based on collaborative poster input.

While I have seen all sorts of strong reactions and conspiracy theories around this proposal, what I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated is a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

This is not the first time we have seen moderation threads like this on TB. IMHO it is a veiled attempt to circumvent what has been posted in the http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...ions-here.html sticky thread! Frankly you should be discussing this issue with SanDiego1k.

So I guess you would be OK with the doctor publicly discussing his intervention with you.

In the Guidelines and Rules you will also read the following We intervene with individual members and we do not discuss that intervention same as my doctor will not discuss with the public any treatments/procedures he has with me.

You most likely do not believe it and I really do not care anymore but same as a match that I'd be officiating there is more personal satisfaction in getting an indivdual back to posting in the best interests of FlyerTalk. which is facilitating effective discussion, than there is in punishing somebody. @:-)

Yep the internet is filled with the dead carcasses of IBBs that imploded from flame wars. Go back and read the threads from the early day here on FT. My belief it is only luck and the fact that the first 1000 were for the most part ladies and gentlemen

Oy, another conspiracy theory? Really?

I am proposing a recommendation for an amendment to the TOS to be considered by the TB.

As hard as it might be, can we focus on the proposal rather than the personalities (sort of ironic that *I* am the one saying this to some of the *mods* participating here! :))!

Again: I have yet to see articulated or demonstrated a down-side to this proposal. What is so 'bad' about allowing posters to have collaborative input on how their favorite forums are managed on a day-to-day basis?

There's no point trying to answer that question though, because whatever response the mods give, we'll be accused of trying to be obstructive because we don't want the the threads or what we will say will be ignored because it doesn't fit within your view of what is appropriate (like you've done with RSSrsvp's opinion of whether they are appropriate for all forums - given he is one of a small number of mods with experience of such things, I would have thought his experience would be valuable, but it apparently isn't if it doesn't agree with the perceived wisdom of some on here).

So, given that I have low expectations about the reception, I'm not sure I want to even try to express my concerns. The issue with that is that because a number of people posting on this thread just don't like mods/moderators, anything we say will be used against us...