Canarsie

Speaking for myself, I volunteered to become a FlyerTalk moderator years ago primarily to give back to the FlyerTalk community in return for all that I have benefited from the community.

My understanding back then was that the primary role of a FlyerTalk moderator is almost identical to that of the role of the proposed FlyerTalk ambassador: to help FlyerTalk members get their questions answered and to make them feel welcome and comfortable posting on FlyerTalk so that they may be encouraged to participate more often. This is still my understanding today. Although the role of a moderator is also to discipline FlyerTalk members who are in violation of the Guidelines & Rules of FlyerTalk, that is not the main role, but rather an unfortunate necessary part of the job. Furthermore, I dislike when my volunteer role is compared to that of a police officer.

In addition to assisting FlyerTalk members publicly, I still receive unsolicited private messages from FlyerTalk members, new and veteran, with questions and suggestions that are for some reason addressed to me only, even if I am not the moderator of a particular forum. I am more than happy to answer those questions and be mindful and thoughtful of any suggestions that come my way. I attempt to assist fellow FlyerTalk members any way I can.

Although I believe this proposal has been presented with good intentions and I support any method that helps make FlyerTalk a better place for as many people as possible, I see this idea as duplicitous. Regardless, I try to keep an open mind. I would support a trial period with a selection of several different FlyerTalk members to be a part of a pilot FlyerTalk ambassador program.

There is a thread I launched in the Delta forum called The Delta Forum Lounge Thread — Everybody is Welcome!. Note the portion of the title which reads Everybody is Welcome! Although this thread serves other purposes, it is important to note that it has served well as a starting point where new FlyerTalk members, as well as veteran FlyerTalk members who are new to the Delta forum, can ask any question they like. In response, they can expect at least a half-dozen warm welcomes from FlyerTalk members who regularly participate in that thread, as well as get answers — often within an hour of posting the question.

I do not know about the past record of other Lounge threads that appear on FlyerTalk, nor am I suggesting or advocating that there be a Lounge thread in every FlyerTalk forum. However, instead of the FlyerTalk ambassador idea, why not just have a welcoming thread in every FlyerTalk forum where FlyerTalk members can feel welcomed — and even have questions answered — by FlyerTalk members in those forums who choose voluntarily to serve as ambassadors, even if only for that moment?

Punki

Markie writes:

In my estimation the character and activity of a person are the selection criteria.

kokonutz

First, to the point about this idea coming to the you, the non-TB member's attention, as a full-blown proposal: The TB has (imho stupid) secrecy rules that prevent us from talking about things that are being talked about in the private forum unless that idea is entirely our own. Since this idea came out of the Phoenix TB meeting as a 'group idea' any talk about it or request for poster input about it in this forum would open that TB member up to accusations of violating the secrecy policy by other TB members. That being the case, the only way to get this idea in front of posters for a full and frank discussion (as opposed to the discussion that took place in the Phoenix thread where everyone had to guess what the concept was about) was for a motion and a second, followed by the TB Vice President/Secretary (Spiff, currently) posting the motion and second in the public forum. If the private TB forum were open on a read-only basis, the TB's hands wouldnt have been tied on the ways that posters like you could have found out what we were talking about and considering. Alas.

As for the reaction to the proposal, it makes me a little sad, particularly the response from many people who have he word 'moderator' under their handle. I really liked what Canarsie said about volunteering to become a moderator: "I volunteered to become a FlyerTalk moderator years ago primarily to give back to the FlyerTalk community in return for all that I have benefited from the community." That is exactly what this concept is all about. Look, not everyone is cut out to be a moderator. Maybe they ran afoul of the TOS early in their posting career. Maybe they just dont have the time or effort to commit to log in every day to kill spam and police posts. But they still want to give back to the community. Why not let folks like that don a 'safety patrol' or 'greeter' badge and continue to be an identifiable welcoming presence for FT ? Why all the concern over such a thing? These folks will have NO power or authority. Just an acknowledgement that they are available and willing to help out or answer a "stupid question" that someone might not feel comfortable posting and that they will continue to try to post in a positive, welcoming fashion.

As to the identification and selection process, well, I guess we could make a secret self-selection process like the moderators have. But I'm for a more open and transparent process. One where the criteria and entry traits are well known and publicized. That is, after all, the point: to try and encourage and reward such behavior.

nsx's idea of making such identification local is a good one, but the TOS clearly prohibits talking about other FTers. The TB has a little more latitude in our secret forum so it gives us the ability to vet potential ambassadors. Would that become a 'political' process? I guess, but no more or less so than the selection of moderators. And at least if you don't like who the TB is making ambassadors you can throw the rascals out at the next election. Making things political in that sense is actually a very GOOD thing: it creates accountability to the posters. And ultimately gives control of this selection process to the posters themselves. @:-)

Anyway, I guess I just encourage everyone to take a step back from this proposal and think about it in terms of 'what is best for FT' and work backwards from there rather than starting from the perspective of 'how would this affect me personally?' And if folks have a better way to implement this program now that we are 'allowed' to talk about it in public that assures openness, transparency and accountability then I for one am all ears; I certainly can't think of one myself.

Punki

Like koko, I am astounded that the responses from the moderators are, with few exceptions, primarily negative, while the responses from non-moderators are primarily positive.

What does that tell us?

nsx

Please humor me and show me where that prohibition is in the TOS. Responding to a member's explicit request for comments on his own suitability should be OK, IMHO.

Punki

While it may put a greater burden on the moderators, because there really are people out there who seem unable to pass up the opportunity to make snarky personal remarks, I actually think that the public thread is a good idea.

I don't think it should be the only criteria for selection, but certainly should be used as a valuable tool.

Canarsie

I can tell you from greater than 2.5 years of personal experience that it has not been a greater burden on me at all, especially since violations of the Guidelines & Rules of FlyerTalk and “snarky personal remarks” are few and far between.

In fact, I enjoy it and usually look forward to participating in this thread.

kokonutz

Sure, if I say "nsx is a super-cool guy and welcoming and would make a great ambassador."

But if I say "nsx has a nasty online persona and would make a horrible ambassador" then I could easily be accused of a personal attack that would per the TOS lead to disciplinary action.

So what is the use of a thread analyzing potential ambassadors where we can only say positive things about someone?

Further, I recently learned that although it is not explicitly spelled out in the TOS, 'baiting or tricking someone' into violating the TOS can lead to a suspension (for clarification, refer to the moderator disciplinary database and search for 'kokonutz' ). Such a thread would clearly fall into that category.

nsx

Hmmmm. We might need special instructions on how to criticize without name calling. Techniques would include posting links to prior posts by the member. I think moderators can handle this OK, especially since moderators will benefit from the help. Also, Randy has access to any material that the moderators delete.

kokonutz

lol, I thought we were looking to simplify the process! And in any case, encouraging posters to publicly discuss the relative merits of other FTers seems like an invitation to trouble/abuse, as we saw when the 'reputation/thread rating' feature was enabled.

BTW, one other compelling reason imho for this program was a comment made by a couple of 'retired' moderators: that while they enjoyed the welcoming and question-answering part of their moderator responsibilities, they loathed the disciplinary aspects of the job.

So if a moderator MUST think about this progam as it relates to them personally, try thinking about it as a way to continue to give back once you retire from/are cycled out of your moderator post! @:-)

I would think that most retired moderators would make excellent ambassadors!!!

Football Fan

Kind of like I feel about it. I don't doubt the good intentions which led to this proposal, I just wonder if an additional title is really necessary.

^

(bolding is from me )

I really like (as usual) Canarsie's approach:

^^^

Maybe I should have said that before TB members voted , but personally, I wouldn't volunteer to be an ambassador - while I don't think prior suspension history should necessarily be an obstacle, I do not nearly feel knowledgable enough about any single forum topic, especially when I see how much more other people know.

When I see a question where I happen to know the answer - and when I have the time to answer - I will try to help out, though. I think in that way, everyone can be an ambassador for FT.

essxjay

While forum mods and its ambassadors wouldn't have to be BBF, they do have to be able to work well together. Mods should have some say in the matter, analogous to employees providing feedback to their employer about prospective job candidates.

The problem with the method of majority vote *alone* is that it doesn't account for the legitimate concerns and reservations raised about the selection criteria -- which bases to use, and whether the criteria is too exclusive.

The suggestion that a nominee's past behavior shouldn't matter is a non-starter. Every member of this community has a reputation of some sort -- good, bad or indeterminate -- based on their posts and interaction with others. Presumably, desirable nominees will self-select from the first or last groups. And since it would be absurd to recommend those in the middle group to Randy, some fundamental criteria is already adhered to.

Are vague perceptions of reputation sufficient for recommendation? Whether the answer "yes" or "no," justification is necessary to avoid arbitrariness. If perception of reputation is enough, then how are those perceptions trustworthy? If perception of reputation isn't enough, then what else is needed?

As for specific, constructive ideas how to improve the concept this TB proposal, here's one: Revise the proposal to include more specific, objective criteria for making recommendations.

At the very minimum, a demonstrated ability to consistently abide by the rule and spirit of the TOS is a reasonable predictor of future behavior. Acts of bad behavior or poor judgment leading to a documented warning or time-out are bells that can't be unrung. Ignoring them leaves the recommending body without sufficient data to reach an informed decision. Relying on them exclusively is prejudicial to nominees who've reformed.

Ambassadors are appointed (not elected) envoys of the FT host. Since the ultimate decision is Randy's, and his time and knowledge base is limited, the matter of accreditation comes down to which body is better suited to forward recommendations to him -- a global committee such as TalkBoard, or the forums for themselves.

B747-437B

As a moderator, I am actually quite taken aback by the negative attitudes that so many of my fellow mods are adopting.

What exactly is so wrong with what Punki is proposing? Even if what many here seem to fear (the creation of a parallel "Ambassador" cadre to rival the "Moderator" group) is true, would not the fact that this cadre would be ELECTED by their peers give them more moral authority?

I have long been a supporter of moderators being elected either directly or indirectly by the userbase. This would be an ideal step to groom a cadre of users who are respected by their peers among the userbase and who would, in due course, be able to take over many of the duties of the unelected moderators, including disciplinary actions, etc...

^^ to Punki and lucky9876coins for proposing this. Kudos. They have demonstrated why they are universally acclaimed as FTers par excellance and are true representatives of the userbase on the Talkboard.

essxjay

A TB vote isn't an election as no office is being sought. And their decision isn't final. A vote only constitutes a recommendation or denial of recommendation for Ambassador to Randy.

Talkboard are "peers?"

BiziBB

Many of the quieter FT airline/destination forums I visit have some very helpful people I consider thought leaders. Their posts demonstrate that they are helpful, knowledgable problem solvers.

The busiest fora must be a very different animal - there is a lot of activity, urgency, stress and pressure on some posters.
I can see how many people on FT who are in the mod group can have their work cut out, to keep everything shipshape.
For these fora, the Lounge thread is really useful to non-regulars,
I've found the lounge forums can be a useful place to post a question where there has been no success using the FT search (which is not working very well).

Is the debate really about the leadership of (a) certain forum(s)? I hope not.

I cn see how some people could feel that the proposal is targeted against them personally and understand that this is something that should be resolved in a two-way process. I hope that isn't the case as we're all in the same boat and this shouldn't be a power struggle.