beaubo

I believe that essexjay's links (which apparently have been in the PUBLIC purview all these years), reveals quite clearly both the responsibilities and expectations of a Moderator.

Hopefully, these documents will provide you the birdseye perspective of the Moderator functioning that you have sought unsuccessfully up to this point.

empedocles

*Eagerly looking forward to the secession of the Ambassadors and the ensuing FT civil war between the Moderators and Ambassadors*

essxjay

Prezactly(©2000, arturo).

kokonutz

^

Would that they did. I've seen those, of course. But where are the zero-tolerance standards? Mandatory minimums? The 'character thing' Cx4 talks about?

Be nat wrooth, my lord, though that I pleye. Ful ofte in game a sooth I have herd seye.

Yet the idea of a 'talkassist' has been around since the beginning. It's an old idea to make FT an even better place.

I think it can be made to work. With this many smart people all gathered in one place, and especially with all of the moderators coming over to pay a visit, there has to be enough good ideas to improve upon the OP to make this proposal palatable.

C'MON, kids, put on yer thinkin' caps!!!

nsx

Zero tolerance? Mandatory minimums? That would be immoderate.

Besides, I have no idea what you're talking about.

IMHO, moderators should be exemplary members, practically perfect in every way. But that's just my opinion/ideal. I'd like Ambassadors to be good examples too, at least when performing that function. Reformed formerly non-exemplary members would be fine with me.

CameraGuy

Koko,

I don't think there are many people who think the idea of FT ambassadors is bad. I know I think it is a good idea.

What is VERY, VERY bad is having the TB involved in the selection process. Here are just a couple of reasons why having the TB involved is bad:

The TB has shown time and time again, that it is incapable of policing itself. If the TB cannot police itself, how in the heck are they going to police the Ambassador corps?

Already, one TB member has stated that certain members would be "shoo-ins". How is that for unbiased?

The motion does not have any type of code of conduct, nor does it have rock-solid criteria for removal. Those two omissions are a recipe for politicizing the process.

Lastly, this motion is obviously just the first step in a power-play to gain control of the moderator corps.

lucky9876coins

Sorry folks, I've been very busy the past few days so haven't really chimed in yet in the public thread with my reasons for seconding the motion, but I promise I will.

Really? Maybe on an individual basis that's true at times, but it's not like Ambassadors would be chosen by individual TB members. I actually think that the TB has historically done a pretty good job at being reasonable since it takes 2/3 of the TB members for something to pass, and this is no exception. It seems like the actions or comments of one TB members, no matter how much you agree or disagree with them, wouldn't constitute the decision of the TB.

kokonutz

As noted, there is a VERY high standard to get anything by the TB: a 2/3 supermajority. So one would have to bribe, cajole, blackmail or otherwise pry him or herself into the hearts of six TB members in order to game the process. Or they could just behave like and be the sort of poster we are looking for. @:-)

But if this is still a concern, would a 7 or 8/9's super-majority make that concern go away? How about requiring a unanimous vote of the TB to grant the ambassador title?

As for taking the title away, how about the opposite? How about we say it only takes a vote of half of the TB to take the title away?

Does an even higher barrier to entry and even lower standard for removal fix the concern?

Or...

...is this the only real concern?

In other words, if the ambassador title was granted by 2/3 of the moderators voting for it, would all of the other 'impracticalities' go away?

nsx

I think it behooves all of us to avoid assuming hidden agendas, and to make proposals that do not feed such beliefs.

Keep in mind my corollary to Occam's Razor: Never attribute to malevolent genius that which can be adequately explained by ignorant incompetence. Try not to be either the one making the assumption or the target thereof.

nsx

It reduces my concern but does not eliminate it. As I wrote earlier:
I stand by that statement. And I don't believe that anyone here has refuted it.

beaubo

The funny thing is, you seem to characterize Mod discipline and enforcement standards with a level of rigidity (zero tolerance and mandatory minimums) whereas we as a group strive toward having the flexibility and versatility and creativity to allow us to do things like give people the benefit of the doubt, try different approaches at dispute mediation and resolution and to consult other Mods and HOM for advice and counsel where necessary and appropriate....long before these maximums would ever become relevant.

Like any form of governance, there have to be rules in place. The Moderator corps has theoretical maximums of discipline that we are permitted to use, and that seems to be the basis of your judgment of us. Instead of looking at the laws on the books, try taking a look at the practical application of such laws, and you'll find a robust system of checks and balances, of compassionate and measured use of discretion, of both peer review of Mods within a Forum and amongst the general membership, and most importantly, a record of millions of posts and a nano's worth of worstcase discipline results.

Man, I don't mean to come off as a Mod PR flack, but considering that there are nearly 100 diverse folks spread out over thousands of miles, with a merely twice yearly 36 hr. powwow and competing demands on their time, methinks that the system is working pretty damn good.

To reiterate, I joined the Mod team with the intent of SERVING as an Ambassador despite being given the LABEL of Moderator. I would happily submit to a re-naming of my position.

ClueByFour

It's true right now. And it's not an individual basis. The collective has never done it.

See above. The talkboard would not remove members who missed a dozen votes, or abstained on a dozen votes. So there is no reasonable expectation to believe it's going to remove a problematic Ambassador.

Why is it so hard to fathom the idea that having a political body appoint people to represent FT is a bad idea?

ClueByFour

Two words: Black Helicopters (tm).

ldsant

One of the best posts I've read in a long time. ^

NickB

nsx has given some pretty powerful arguments above (in post #60) for staying away from a centralised formal programme and stick to the current informal status quo.

If, however, we were to go for a formal ambassador programme (and that is a very big IF from my perspective), it seems to me pretty essential that the programme should have the full confidence of the moderators, as mods and ambassadors in a given forum would have to work together and sing from the same hymn sheet, as it were. Having ambassadors and mods at loggerheads in a forum would be a perfect recipe to totally discredit the programme. What I would suggest, therefore, would be for the mod team in a given forum to nominate potential ambassadors (after having approached the nominees), who could then be endorsed by TB to avoid concentration of power in one locus. This also have the added advantage that mods are far better placed than TB to identify "angels" on the forum they moderate. Mods would also decide, by the same token, whether they think that ambassadors are desirable in the forum they moderate or not, as I am far from sure that all fora would have an equal need for ambassadors.

As to TOS violations, I do think that this should have an impact on eligiblity for office. The question is not one of "substantive" suitability but rather of the message you send to newcomers. Having TOS violators as ambassadors is a bit like saying to new members: "Well, we have that thing called terms of service but they are a bit of a joke really and nobody takes them seriously. Just look at me. I violate the TOS, and yet I am an ambassador. SO go ahead and feel free to do the same."
Sure, peccadillos in the distant past should not hand the neck of reformed reprobates for ever but recent violations are another matter. I would have thought that violation of the TOS while serving as an ambassador should lead to immediate and automatic removal of the title.