Is it perhaps time to examine the issue(s) of moderators and guidelines?
 

In view of the many threads I've read recently, where this appears to be an issue, I'm just asking.

FWIW, some time ago, I'd asked about the:

Future of "Moderators" and their role(s)?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...=278908&page=1

Again, I'm not certain these issues were satisfactorily resolved.

I am now, as I was then, in favor of moderators, and I think that nearly all of them are doing an absolutely great job. Thanks! :)

And thankfully, "moderators" are not apples, and one "bad" one does not spoil the entire bushel! :D

With the new board, and the recently expanded powers granted to our mods to now not only judge, but also to administer punishment to members, it seems it may well be time to put in place a means of oversight to insure a fair and balanced approach is the norm. IMHO, it would also serve us well to establish grounds for some form of censure.

Is it time to update the guidelines, make them public, and establish a means by which the TB will effective oversee the moderators as Randy had orignally suggested would be the case?

I hope the TB as well as the moderators will comment in addition to the concerned members. Thanks in advance for your ideas concerning this important matter. :)

-Mark

I will forward this suggestion to the TalkBoard.

Thanks!

What suggestion is there to submit?

I tried to find one in the OP, but was unsuccessful.

In my mind, the issue is that some members continue to see each and everything that a member does as a moderator issue. I would point out that those members who constantly do this are all long-term members of FT, and their own actions from time-to-time, and frankly far too often for my own personal good, are inexcusable for a long-term member. If that's the way any of this is headed, then I'll have to develop the exact same oversight for that group when it comes to me being asked for input on a post of theirs or other behavior.

Just make sure when you are adddressing any of this, any behavior you note is eactly within their role as a moderator and not something that is not distinguishable from any other right that a member enjoys.

That's all I have to say.

Among the questions to be considered, IMHO, are the "qualifications", if any, the term length or whether it is perhap a lifetime appointment, and what, if anything, could lead to censure, or possibly even removal? Thanks very much! :)

Have a great weekend all! :)

-Mark

It would seem to me that - since Randy is the only person who can appoint moderators and we "work" for him - those "considerations" are his and his alone to make.

I am sure he would ask the Talkboard if he wanted input on this one....

I sincerely doubt Randy needs "guidance" on whether to censure or remove someone... he seems to know how to do that. :)

William

Indeed.

Speaking only for myself, in my role as a moderator (rather than TB member)In my case, rather dubious! :o I serve at the pleasure of the board owner. TOS violations. (And concerns about whether I have violated FT's TOS should certainly be reported to [email protected])

Agree. ^^

Originally, wharvey, as you may recall, moderators were to be overseen by the TB, according to Randy.

Of course, originally, moderators were also to simply bring urgent matters to Randy's attention as well, and they had absolutely no power to ban anyone, from anywhere, for any lenth of time.

Things change! ;)

IMHO, some clarity would likely prove helpful to all! Thanks! :)

-Mark

Yes things do change.

Randy decided to delegate the ability for OMNI moderators to allow and block posting access to OMNI on the old board. With the advent of the new software he decided to delegate to the moderators the ability to "ban" any user that violates the TOS.

This is a very beneficial move, IMHO. It put an end to the old "Friday Night Follies" on ORP, and just last night allowed moderators to shut down another new user who seemed content to create 3 or 4 new accounts (as fast as the moderators banned him/her) to spread their message of "hate".

Randy is notified when a user has been suspended though a thread on the Moderator's Board (and via email if the offense is egregious). If a user feels they have been unfairly punished, they can always go to Randy to appeal their suspension. Its been my experience that he is a lot harsher than the moderators in such cases though.

And earlier this week two of the UA mods worked together to ban a user who had posted several offensive (and MUCH complained about) troll-posts in the UA forum and who signed up with two fake usernames. In fact this was a user who had previously been permanently banned by Randy under yet a different user name. Randy was informed of all in the thread just for this purpose in the Mod's forum.

Another couple of mods caught a couple of fake handles before that and action was quickly taken to ban them.

And in another case where apparently, perhaps, the software migration didn't carry through a ban previously done by Randy (similar I suppose, perhaps, to old previously locked threads now being unlocked), one of the mods was able to reinstate the ban and was thanked by Randy for it.

Randy is aware of all of these actions.

The new tools make it so much easier for mods to collobarate and quickly get these sort of jobs done.

Was it avek00?

It that important, or relevant?

In the grand scheme of things, what is, anyway :rolleyes:.

No. A perusal of the UA board will easily find the user's names.

Thanks.

Sorry, I thought that our focus was the topics, not the members...

There was some brief discussion on this matter and with the input of the current TalkBoard members and Randy, this topic was tabled.

The moderators and their guidelines/abilities will remain as they are for now.

Thanks Spiff! :)

Just curious, what exactly are they now?


And FWIW, again, as I'd posted earlier, having just seen this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...0&page=1&pp=15

I again wondered "Among the questions to be considered, IMHO, are the "qualifications", if any, the term length or whether it is perhap a lifetime appointment, and what, if anything, could lead to censure, or possibly even removal? Thanks very much!

Gary, BYW, like most all the FT moderators, has proven to be exemplary, IMHO!

Thanks once again all! :)

-Mark

---

Thanks very much for these comments.

May I politely ask however, if this below, for example, is how we want "members" to respond to posts that they feel are off base, trouble, or whatever?

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by ScottC

FWIW, please also see:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/show...t=322795&page=1

Wow. A new low in cross linking drivel, even from you. Must you really add flames to what is obviously only posted to create trouble?

Pathetic.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by CameraGuy

WOW! A DOUBLE :rolleyes: :rolleyes: for both the OP and the cross posting troublemaker.

---

Quote:
Originally Posted by skofarrell

If I win, do I get a prize? Trophy?

---


I would surely hope not!

Thanks again,

Mark

TROLL.

That thread had no other purpose than to create trouble, and as always you tried to use it to push your own agenda.

Even the way you spell out "members" makes it clear to the community that you take pleasure in your trolling and baiting.

I thought this question was clearly answered on post #4 and again on #19.

Did I miss something? :confused:

ScottC, there is really no justification for your personal attack! As a moderator, you should learn how to behave yourself.

IMHO.

Not true I think.

Even if it was true, he may very well be mistaken as well. As has been seen on many occasions.

Please see this link

---

Hmmm.

I was twice told, in fact specifically warned by moderators (from OMNI as well as from SPAM), that calling posters a "troll" is not permissible, and that doing so would surely result in a timeout/ban for me.

Does this apply to you as well?

Incidentally, I did not do so myself, but instead simply linked to a website selling lures, and another time linked to one of your very own OMNI threads!

I am reminded of this thread, that you had promptly edited for some reason:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...3549&highlight

If you remember, it was after one of your "buddies" again posted still another mocking, attacking, nasty post on this thread:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=321892

which was deleted by the moderators.


FWIW, IMHO, your posted comment in response to Goldlust, was just as likely, or perhaps even more so, to cause "trouble." Just my opinion, of course! ;)

I'd sought only to direct the thread to what I thought was a potentially constuctive thread, based upon previously and recently expressed remarks from others, including myself.

BTW, could you kindly elaborate for me please what this supposed agenda of mine is?

Thanks! :)

Have a great day all! :)

-Mark

I see - is this the classic:
"Goldlust does not follow the rules, so ScottC and skofarrel do not have to follow them either"-approach?

Just wondering.

After all, moderators are supposed to be mature.

Yet to be seen with regards to some, I suppose. :rolleyes:

Is that supposed to excuse we regular (i.e. non-moderator) members from having to be mature?

Another post to report, I guess.

FewMiles..

Where does it say that? Anyone who knows me knows that I am not mature. But what does that have to do with the topic?

By no means. I just think moderators have a special obligation to set a good example.



Some have failed miserably at that.

Enough
 

Gentlemen, please!

I am closing this thread. Please take this discussion to private email, if necessary.