Hunki

Oops, I didn't realize that Hunki was logged in and accidentally posted. Mea culpa, Punki

Punki

My bad. I didn't realize that Hunki had taken over the computer.

Spiff, I think we are all in agreement that Ambassadors should abide by the TOS, the only difference we seem to have is that you and Clue appear to feel that removal of the Ambassaor designation should be immediate and automatic for even the most minor infraction, while some of us would prefer to take a look at the big picture, rather than a single suspension.

This is an excellent opportunity for TalkBoard and the moderators to work together for the betterment of FlyerTalk. I honestly cannot figure out why a tiny handful of moderators are taking such negative positions to such a positive and enriching program.

mikey1003

To me this is just another way to add unnecessary titles to FTer.

In every forum I have been in, FTers are happy tho help ( and gripe)

The system we have now works, it ain't broke, Don't fix it (Or should I say don't enhance it?)

Punki

What we are trying to fix, mikey1003, or perhaps eliminate from FT, is the snarkiness with which newbies are often greeted when they first arrive and ask a so called "stupid" question.

A huge number of people who sign up for FT never post at all, or just make a few posts and then disappear forever.

We have a small window of opportunity to turn a sign-up into a regular poster and, I for one, firmly believe that a friendly voice may make the thing that makes the difference.

At least we can give it a go. If at the end of a year or so, our retention rate is unchanged or has, God forbid, declined, we can always cancel the program.

scoow

I for one am willing to trust 1/3+ 1 of the TB to not approve, or 2/3 of TB to revoke, the Ambassador title for any FT'er whose TOS violations or suspensions are egregious, thus making them "unfit" to be an Ambassador. Besides, I can think of several FTers who are very friendly and welcoming to new members in one forum, but in other forums, I would want those same FTers to serve as the welcome wagon. (Will OMNI or TS/S have Ambassadors? )

But, I do have a few questions about this motion:
Will we be able to nominate someone other than ourselves? From the OP, it seems that only self-nominations are possible. Why are Ambassadors limited to only volunteering in one forum? While I understand there will be definite differences in Ambassadors and Moderators, Moderators can moderate more than one forum. Most "friendly" people on FT tend to carry that same attitude in whichever forum they post. If an Ambassador doesn't want to be swamped with newbie questions from more than one forum, they would only volunteer for one forum. However, especially in many of the less-busy forums, I don't see why an Ambassador couldn't volunteer in more than one forum. There is no indication of a "limit" to the number of Ambassadors in a forum, so volunteering in two should not restrict another person's ability to volunteer.

This same arguement could be made with regard to TB members and Moderators. They are expected to be friendly and welcoming, but that's no reason to prohibit their serving as Ambassadors. But, I can live with this restriction. After all, there's only so much room on the left side of a post.

Finally, if an Ambassador is elected to TB or becomes a Moderator, will the Ambassador title be removed automatically or only after a TB vote? And, upon completion of a TB term or resignation as a Moderator, would the Ambassador title be automatically restored or would the person have to re-nominate? Some might not be comfortable asking the TB that just beat them in an election to appoint them Ambassador! It would be nice if this "friendly" position didn't get mucked-up in politics.

kokonutz

I understand and appreciate that people are concerned about the qualifications of ambassadors. But look, it is going to take a vote of at least 6 out of 9 TB members to (as we do with ALL things we do) RECOMMEND TO RANDY that someone be made a forum ambassador.


Which all goes to dhammer's hypothesis:

The whole point of the TB is to make recommendations to a very busy Randy. Those recommendations have to have a high degree of consensus and then Randy can decide if the recommendation makes sense or not. Same exact deal with this program. We don't have a minimum standard or metric for creating or eliminating forums because there are too many nuances involved in such a recommendation. Same with ambassadors, imho.

So to sum up:

- The bar to be made an ambassador is NOT set low. To the contrary it is set very high: 2/3 of the TB plus Randy.
- The program is designed to identify and 'reward' and encourage FT 'angels.'


So, while the discussion of what the TB ought to be for looking for to deny a person the ambassador title seems to be the focus so far, perhaps a more useful and productive use of time and thought might be to concentrate on what specifically the TB ought to be looking for in approving ambassadors? Because personally I'd rather define the program by the way it can be earned rather than on what causes an automatic denial.

YMMV!

kokonutz

scoow: since you made many of the same points I did at about the same time, let me respond to a couple of yours:

- Yes, I read the guidelines to say that a person has to nominate him or herself. This makes sense to me since there are certain obligations that one takes on in becoming an ambassador, such as making ones self available to answer questions via PM and/or email. Some folks may be the sorts of angels that cblaisd describes on forums but have no interest in doing so in a more formal capacity or in offering themselves up to do the same via PM or email. So the person should be the one to nominate themselves for this honor/obligation.

- I think the idea of a poster being an ambassador for one forum only (and also not also being a TB member and/or moderator) is to spread around the opportunities to be serve FT. Besides, as the guidelines point out, mods and TB members are supposed to be angels anyway!

- As I see it, some forums could have tens of ambassadors and some may have none. Frankly, some forums NEED tens of ambassadors and some need none.

RichMSN

And this is a good thing why?

I don't think the two ideas or positions should even be compared.

Spiff

Yeah, I guess I'm one of those strange people who don't consider a suspension a "minor infraction", particularly for someone who is supposed to be welcoming and spreading goodwill in a forum.

tcook052

Are we talking dozens of Ambassadors? Hundreds? Has a limit been thought of or like others things is TB shy about setting hard & fast numbers? What the buzzword? Oh, yeah, metrics. Just curious.

FWIW, I never thought this kind of Wal-Mart greeter position was necessary but now it's become official will offer my tacit approval.

Cholula

Not too many newbies in OMNI so my guess is No.

TS/S does have some warm, fuzzy and welcoming folks, believe it or not.

You just have to peer through the barrage of slings, arrows and brickbats to spot them.

Name one!!


We have had a limited discussion on numbers and my suggestion was that we use the number of mods assigned to a particular forum as a guideline to the number of Ambassadors who might be needed.

FT's forums run 24/7/365 on a global basis so it would be helpful, in the busier forums, if we had someone "on duty" or available around the clock. The chance to welcome a newbie and/or answer his/her questions in a timely manner is important.

Some of the busiest forums may have a half-dozen or more Ambassadors and others may have one or none. A lot depends on who applies and if those chosen are ready, willing and able to devote the needed time.

essxjay

Could you be more specific about what is entailed by the TB and moderators "work[ing] together?" The proposed vetting process mentions only that mods "may" be consulted.

Because the program, as written, is procedurally problematic. Ambassadors as such, no particular problem.

You're certainly entitled to a high opinion of your own proposal, Punki. But the characterization of those in disagreement with you is uncharitably dismissive. (Especially in light of the closer working relationship down the line that you've suggested ... )

dhammer53

Punki,

Even with Ambassadors, Flyertalk will always have rude posters; or maybe I should say, posters with attitude.
Unless an Amb responds to a post before a 'snarky' poster, FT will still have the problem.

dhammer53

I'm already the unoffical ambassador of Chat.

RichardInSF

Seems to me like it couldn't hurt to try this idea. But if there are doubts, how about a two month test run in a few of the busier forums? Still would be time for the current TB to authorize a full program within their current term if the trial went well.