This is supposed to be about creating an atmosphere of welcome, leading to membership retention leading to various outcomes, the benefits of which are another discussion entirely.

So, why do we need to title these people as ambassadors? Is this the kind of thinking that leads small towns to have elections for who will be the school-crossing warden? I think so.

The natural ambassadors are that way, because they are genuinely inclined to be that way, or perhaps they want to return something the FT community that has given so much to them.

By all means, have a list recognising greeters and helpers, even publish it as a roll of honour somewhere else, but don't put it in to a members description like a badge visible on every post - the kind of spirit we need to fulfill this role is to be displayed, not to be bestowed or earned.

If you politicise this through some sort of electing or proposing system, you are de facto limiting the field by attracting political types and excluding the silent majority who would never go for election or always refuse a public appointment - it should be a case of "being" not "making".

Would ambassadors be a force for good - I think so. But to make them sole good cops and to make the moderators in to sole bads cops does not serve us well.

Make this apolitical - and verifiably so, I support. Fail to do so, I reject, the notion. Certainly, I reject the current motion.

VERY thoughtfully put from one of the newest moderators. ^ on all counts. Thank you.

I agree with GoldCircle for most of the post above and wonder why the proposal is required. Is this a solution to a problem in (a) particular forum(s)?
Is the proposal a badge for enhancing the prestige of individuals across FT or is it just a recognition for service in a particular forum?

If the proposal is unsuccessful in its current form, is there sufficient support for it to be amended to become a trial in the forum(s) where there is a problem?

It would be unfortunate if this position, honour or recognition was formalised and then abused. I don't know if that would happen, but I sense there are power struggles and tensions in a few corners of FT.

Thanks for trying to come up with a solution.
I hope we can trial this to see if it helps or exacerbates tensions or power struggles. ;)

Because it takes either:

1. One whopper of a mistake to go directly to, say, a 30-day or greater suspension.

2. It's typically a minimum of three mistakes (the latter two being somewhat notable) to get there.

I don't have the stats at hand, but the number of people who get edited, much less anything greater by a mod is a rather small percentage of the FT membership. You don't eliminate people you want as Ambassadors by excluding those who have had a Randy-upheld 30 day suspension.

What that would do would be to take away another lever from a political body, which is, IMHO, an outstanding goal.

This business of "precluding a potentially good ambassador" is another logical fallacy (I'll let those of you who survived a traditional and/or Jesuit logic class name it). It's not a problem which is ever likely to occur, whereas history (and it's tendencies towards policing it's own) could toss a pretty good preview of how the Talkboard might ensure the decorum of it's appointed Ambassadors.

Your understanding is incorrect. I urge you, as a Talkboard member, to take that up with Randy, as I'm sure he'd be willing to set the record straight. Randy has been pretty good about correcting misinformation about "capricious" actions of various sorts in the past, and I think it's fairly instructive to read a bit into the fact that he's repeatedly done so.

Sure. And we ought to have a standard of decorum for those people. One that is concrete and not decided on the whim of a political body. I'd think we'd want people volunteering to help FT to meet a higher standard, not "how many TB members happen to like me this week."

Lots of sidestepping that issue, not much addressing it. That's before the other issues (notably, the things which are alleged to be in the procedure but mysteriously absent from the actual motion, and the issue of a forum nominating it's own) are thought about.

Please explain the criteria you are using here? It is important to understand when Mods will not be consulted if Ambassadors are to be appointed.

All of the quotes you use Punki describe the type of activity or character or personality required for the role. Not the selection criteria.

The proposal, as written clearly shows that TalkBoard will appoint Ambassadors and may or may not consult the Mods in the Forum. A future, more capricious TalkBoard could easily appoint Ambassadors at odds with the Moderators of a forum.

There is no allowance in the proposal for consultation with Randy, notwithstanding the repeated assurances that TalkBoard will pass nominations to Randy.

The proposal as written does not set any criteria based on previous contributions or behavior - they simply have to behave in a particular way in the future. I think this is a substantial failure. Would you consider a banned member suitable as an Ambassador if you think their ban were capricious?

I have already made clear that my personal view is that some regard must be paid to a posters previous history. I wonder how a new member would feel to be welcomed by someone who is supposed to explain the culture of a forum only to discover that the same person has been subject to discipline on more than one occasion for failing to follow the TOS?

In terms of how I would amend the proposal - well surely that is the role of the elected TalkBoard?

How is this proof of anything?

And am I correct to say you would disqualify Punki from, what, any volunteer role with FT just cause she received a suspension in the past? Why would the typical member care? It didn't stop my vote for TB, for example.

So what? There are forums I participate in where I would pick different Ambassadors than the moderators would. How about leaving it up to the participants of the forum itself, not just 1-3 people who happen to be moderating it for the time being?

Yes. Next question?

I would hope that the person would feel welcomed and not think that all volunteers at FT need to be put upon some pedestal. FT should be more inclusionary, not less. IJAFIBB.

Personally, I've come to find this whole proposal silly and the title of Ambassador unnecessary, but it is a bit revealing how some of the posters in this thread feel about not having complete control over something in "their" forums.

FWIW, even though I support the Ambassador program & its concept - I still think some of the details need to be further worked out...so, for this proposal, at this time, I've voted NO.

For example, how to choose an Ambassador seems to be a big one.

Instead of TB picking one, as RichMSN states above, maybe leaving it up to forum participants would be a good idea. For example, maybe if someone was interested in becoming an ambassador for the forum, do an anonymous poll within the forum, where folks can vote for or against the person as an ambassador of that forum - leave it open for a week & majority rules as to whether the person becomes an ambassador.

As for disciplinary issues, I don't think it matters if someone's had a suspension issue in the past - but I do think that it does matter for the future. If someone gets suspended while being an ambassador, then they shouldn't be recognized as an ambassador any more - as to how that's tracked since suspensions aren't public info, I'm not 100% sure...

I was concerned about a thread where people discuss the person applying for the position. First of all, it's against the TOS as it's currently written.

I think the anonymous poll is a terrific idea. Leave it open for a week, put a thread in a Sticky, etc. The moderator, who is a member first, gets the same weight as all the other members.

Please clarify the TOS issue. If I post a request for comments on my suitability for the role, how is it against the TOS for anyone to respond? Presuming, of course, that the response does not contain a personal attack or a discussion of specific moderator action.

BTW, this is not a rhetorical question. I am no expert on the TOS. At the risk of discussing specific moderator action, not to mention violating my own privacy, I'll tell you that my first deletion as a moderator was of my own thread. I didn't realize that the TOS prohibited all cash offers regardless of whether they violate the airline program's rules. Another moderator graciously pointed it out to me and I sheepishly removed the thread. So I am willing to be educated on the TOS.

Back on topic, I believe that a thread for comments provides much more information and higher quality information than a simple head count. Any TOS issue aside, I don't see a sufficient reason to deprive ourselves and Randy of that information. Furthermore, anonymous polls are susceptible to electioneering and other shenanigans, whereas an open thread is visible to everyone. We're not looking for the best politician, but the best person for the job. Just my opinion.

While I am not firmly against this proposal, I also am not firmly in favor of it because I have some lingering concerns about the burden and secondary impacts such a formalized approach might involve.

I think it could impose a quite large burden and "exhaust" the very FTers whose contributions I already appreciate -- and it also may end up demoralizing other FTers whose contributions I appreciate but who may post less after a formalized "ambassdor" status is denied or pulled.

... or that the NZ forum isn't always welcoming. :D

It's the smaller airline forums with their core that seem most positively inclined to new members. I take the SAS forum as one -- but not only -- example of that. You should see how many FT ambassadors without the "ambassador" designation are on the SAS forum when a Pandion shows up. :D

I do not think that I have ever referred to the forums that I Moderate as 'mine'. Clearly they belong to Internet Brands and Randy, and are provided for the benefit of all members.

Personally I have now concluded my comments on this proposal. I think I have made all the points that seem appropriate.