There are a number of things that concern me about the proposals as drafted.

Let me say from the outset that I have asked for several years that Mods be given a tool to allow them to identify new members posting in the their forum, or first time postings by an established member. This would have allowed the Mods to do the task that the Ambassadors have been assigned. This tool has not been made available, and so the ability to welcome new members/posters is a hit and miss affair. How will this proposal identify new members or first time posters?

I, like some Moderators who have posted, are concerned that there is no ability to remove an Ambassador for breaking the rules. Rather than there being a 'secret database' (surely a comment unworthy of a TalkBoard member), there is a database, available to all Mods of people who have broken the terms of service. This database is an essential tool in ensuring consistency of Moderation.

That Mods 'may' be consulted about Ambassadors in their forums is of concern, as it would clearly be possible to appoint a person who has a warning or suspension to a forum where they have earned that. This seems to be a recipe for disaster with the Ambassador welcoming people whilst at the same time continuing in their problem behavior. Surely the same removal criteria as Mods would solve this? (30 day suspension earned). This is not an issue of 'boy scouts' but rather that the Ambassadors will need to explain postings in terms of the TOS, which they themselves have breached on more than one occasion in order to get the 30 days. Other postings seem not to understand that a 30 day would not be the first level of suspension but rather the third - and so the person would have had to break the TOS THREE times before getting to the 30 days. And still you think they are suitable to be Ambassadors?

Unlike Mods there appears to be no minimum requirements for this role. Mods are required to log in to their forums every day now or possibly cease to be Mods. What about Ambassadors, do they have to welcome people within a particular time frame? How will multiple Ambassadors ensure that they don't all welcome the same person?

I am concerned that within the JD of the Ambassador will be to explain the 'ins and outs' of the forum. That could easily set up the Ambassdor to be in conflict with the Moderators of that Forum. That surely is not sensible or the new members will be replying to Mods, that the Ambassador said that they could post this or that.

As I laid out at the start, I have always wanted us to be able to go out and welcome people but am truly not sure that this will work on the ground.

Markie writes:

You know, they probably won't, but would that be such a bad thing? :D

The last time I joined a new organization and found that everyone rushed up and welcomed me, I thought it was pretty cool.

Depending on the individual case - yes :cool:.

(not really commenting on whether this new position would be needed...rather on the fact that suspensions can have different reasons....)

I've read the proposal a couple of times, and I don't see where it is describing a process to recommend folks to Randy; it appears to be written as a process by which "Ambassadors" are invested with their titles by the sole authority of the TalkBoard. (It says that they become "Ambassadors" upon 2/3 vote; it doesn't say they are recommended to Randy upon 2/3 vote. So which is it?)

Same question. The motion makes the investiture of "Ambassadors" automatic upon 2/3 vote; Randy isn't mentioned anywhere.

If I've misread or missed where in the original motion there is reference to Randy having final approval, I'd appreciate being corrected.

I don't think this is necessarily a terrible idea, but I do think a) we already have such folks who function in this way de facto; b) the job description of moderators (and something reiterated many times by Randy to the moderators as utterly essential in his mind) already includes the "ambassadorial" functions outlined in the motion as Job One; and c) the whole thing is unnecessarily complex and will be inevitably politicized (the way to keep such a role from being politicized is for Randy to ask for opinions from the moderators about who in their forums are especially helpful/welcoming and especially respectful of the TOS as evidenced by their lack of disciplinary actions).

I agree, this could be a problem. The role of Ambassadors would need to be explained as 'being a guide for new members' and Ambassadors would need to guide the member to the mod for any assistance if a post is ok - or not. their role is therefor very limited.

is the role of the Ambassador as well to be a help to the moderator? (for example pointing out bad posts?) or are they only for newbies?

chrissxb writes:

IMHO, you are absolutely right, chrissxb. ^ That is exactly the way that I envisioned the process working.

The role of the Ambassador is simply to be friendly, welcoming, and willing to positively answer the questions that now receive a curt, "Do a search" several hundred times, if necessary.

and now if you could answer my 2nd question, punki :)

chrissxb writes:

IMHO, certainly! I think that all of us who accept an official role for helping to make FlyerTalk a better place, have an obligation to do the best we can to help one another along the way.

Sorry to disagree here but there is only one reason for a suspension - breaking the TOS.

Then this should have been included in the proposal explicitly. Perhaps TalkBoard would like to reject the proposal as is until such time as some of the comments made in this thread have been explicitly addressed.

Allow me to ask some basic questions here.

Why is the "retention rate" of such concern? I really don't get the objective here -- is bigger necessarily better? (I'm feeling that perhaps the opposite is true -- FT has degenerated greatly as it has gotten bigger.)

I personally have browsed a number of different specialized online forums that I either never signed up for, or, having signed up, hardly ever read or post to. I see nothing wrong with that. It's natural and normal, for ANY online forum.

Perhaps there is some "agenda" behind this move, such as an effort to get more revenue for IB by increasing FT membership? If so, I think it is best to be up front about that. @:-)

I can assure you, KathyWdrf, that there is no ulterior motive at work here as far as I know.

Further, you are absolutely right that growth is a double-edged sword. I personally have gone back and forth about the value of growth right since the very beginning. The reality that I have come to accept is that growth is inevitable so we should do the very best we can to adapt and try to make a larger FlyerTalk the very best FlyerTalk it can be.

I have many friends from FlyerTalk whom I have now known for 10 years. That is amazing. What is even more amazing to me are the really smart newcomers I have met in the last couple of years. They all make FlyerTalk the truly wonderful, unique place that it is today.

The Ambassador Program is designed to make FT so nice and friendly that even more newbies will be attempted to hang around long enough to get hooked and become serious contributing members of our community. Why? IMHO because the more new and exciting ideas that people are willing to bring to the table, the stronger and better FT becomes.

Agree to disagree.

Are "welcomes" limited to people who have just signed-up on FT? Or anyone new to the forum? Personally, I would like to see a UA flyer who pops over to the DL forum for the first time to be welcomed... and that FTer is likely to be asking a "newbie" type question. It doesn't matter if the forum is an airline, destination, or CC. New posters to a forum tend to have the same types of questions. I actually like Markie's idea, but why limit this to moderators? I've seen a suggestion somewhere to show a members total post count, and the post count in the particular forum. I don't know if that is possible, but it would be pretty cool. (In the context of identifying new posters; in general, I couldn't care less about post counts.)

Yes, TS/S does! And it's often the same person who in the next post (or even the same post) is right in the middle of the "barrage". Would this person be a good Ambassador for the forum? If not, would they be eligible to serve as an Ambassador in another forum? I could easily see a TB member who "knows" a poster from one forum (even OMNI :eek:) to base their vote on the posts in that forum rather than in the forum the member applied to serve as Ambassador.