> 50 nice actions in a forum/year will make royal ambassador? ;)

:D

All except the IC forum... How many Ambassadors could one fit, there? ;)

:rolleyes:
Setting aside the "Royal", "Platinum" or "Emerald" debate, will there be partner benefits for a nice action in another forum? If so, will CommunityBuzz join SkyTeam or *Alliance? Will SPG let you earn on multiple forums? Does partner activity earn at the same rate, or discounted?

Then there will be the miles/ points/ segment debate. We'll have to decide if actions in a slow forum count for more "points" than a busy forum; whether a brief "welcome" counts as much as a detailed, indepth response (short "segments" vs word-count "miles"); or if a nice action is a nice action is a nice action. :D
:rolleyes:

Forgive my ignorance, but I cannot. WHO, exactly, feels like this proposal is targeted at them personally?? And how can there possibly be perceived power struggle when all that is being suggested is that a certain attitude and behavior be recognized, encouraged and 'rewarded' by the TB?

Am I missing something here? Are moderators somehow insulted or concerned that this proposal is somehow a criticism of their efforts? Are moderators worried that they will somehow lose control of the forums they moderate if helpful behavior is recognized and encouraged? Do moderators feel 'special' and worry that by recognizing other people as special in another way moderators would somehow become less special? I refuse to believe that our volunteer moderators would be so short sighted and petty.

And yet I am struggling to understand why so many moderators have such a a negative attitude about this proposal...and why so few have actually offered constructive ideas to improve whatever deficiencies they see in the proposal.

Come one, guys, what would it take? Would moderators come around this being a great idea (as I believe it inherently is) if moderators were the ones identifying ambassadors? If moderators had some sort of power over the program like a veto for ambassadors? If we applied the same standards for ambassadors that you guys use to self-select moderators [WARNING: that would require actually telling folks what those criteria are ;)]? Seriously...what would it take to make this program go without making the moderators apparently feel so threatened?

nsx took a great shot at it, having forum posters themselves decide who the ambassadors are in a forum. It's something that I originally thought about when we talked about this initiative in Phoenix. But the drawbacks are too many, as noted.

The way the program is proposed is based on the fact that it creates the greatest amount of openness, transparency and accountability to the posters themselves. No, sxj, it would not be direct election of ambassadors, but it is as close as we can get: having an elected body appoint ambassadors. Don't like their choices? Fire the TB at the next election. Accountability. All without the popularity contest and inherent temptation for TOS violation you'd get with direct ambassador elections.

Anyway. As with all TB initiatives, it takes a great deal of consensus to make a recommendation to Randy. If the moderators are dead-set against this idea then I'm quite sure it won't happen.

But to me, and I think for moderators, for those who want to give something back to FT short of being a moderator and for those who would benefit from having ambassadors around, that would be a real shame. So any and all constructive ideas are welcome! ^

I think that the idea by itself is great but am very concerned about some details - not so much even the selection or removal of Ambassadors but that this will setup a good cop / bad cop dynamic in the forums with the "welcoming" Ambassadors being viewed as the good cop and Mods who carry out the "disciplinary" actions (even as "benign" as edits and moves of threads and posts) as the bad cop. Assuming that most Ambassadors do the welcoming quickly, mods will probably back off that role and only visibility will be when a "disciplinary" action needs to be taken.

You know, I really and truly hope it ends up being a contest to see who can greet the new members first! :)

And speaking only for myself, I'll never back off the most important part of my job of welcoming and guiding new members.

Plus, hey, I don't think we can say "Welcome to FlyerTalk" too many times. So if three Ambassadors, two Mods and a few general members all welcome the new member, how is that not a good thing?

My understanding is that most of the disciplinary stuff takes place behind the scenes anyway, except to those involved. So very few people are even aware of the 'bad cop' duties of a moderator.

But no, the point of Ambassadors is not to replace moderators' (and TB members'!) sworn duty to be welcoming and helpful, rather it is to supplement those efforts...and to encourage everyone to want to act in a welcoming and helpful manner in order to earn that title. ^

And to give more posters opportunities to give back to FT in a more formal way.

Well I would tend to disagree here at least for people who are "very" active - they'll see posts that are moved, edited, deleted (which can be "publicly" seen) and it really isn't very hard to figure out sources of suspensions.

Like I said, I think this is a good idea - but details need to be worked out.

It tells you nothing. Mods don't have a problem with the idea. What they do have a problem with (or at least this one) is the idea that a body that refuses to police it's own members who break the TOS would be responsible for appointing ambassadors, without setting down concrete guidelines for decorum.

{Passage removed by moderator, due to being overly argumentative and discussing past mod actions}

Yes.

As far as this mod is concerned, no. Most of the mods became mods to do what you are suggesting Ambassadors do, and most did that kind of thing before they got any title above their name.

Again, no. We've been encouraging "helpful behavior" since before the Talkboard existed. It's not a new idea--if you have a gander at some of the more useful sticky posts, forum FAQs, etc, you will find that most of them were not originated and many are not maintained by mods, for instance. Helpful behavior both exists and is encouraged today.

"Recognized," in this parlance, is a title. One which you guys are willing to give (or not explicitly deny to) people who have demonstrated that they can't play in the FT sandbox with others.

They are not. You are attempting to make that characterization for debate purposes (name the logical fallacy again--I should start a pool!).

Umm, I think if you reread what I've written (on decorum standards) and what nsx (and others) have written about selection and what has been written about the potential (and I use that because I don't think it'll be a problem) issue of getting mod and Ambassador to be able to co-exist you will quickly find that your "so few have offered" thing is as flimsy as the original motion, if not worse.

Logical fallacy time, again.

You want to correct the deficiencies? Go back and seriously contemplate (above and beyond "rewarding" a few outstanding FT members who already do this sort of thing without a title) what exactly the desired outcome is. Then consider how to remove politics from the process and actually do what's in the best interests of FT members.

One of the members who proposed this is an excellent Ambassador, and has been completely mute during this debate. The other has tossed around the words "capricious" and "moderator" for the umpteenth time. Given how deficient and politicized the proposed model is, how could anyone (mod or otherwise) take it seriously?

Am I the only one who thinks that this proposal as written is the first step in the TB taking over control of the moderator corps?

I can see the next proposal down the line:

Hey, TB does such a great job appointing and overseeing the ambassador corps, why not have them perform the same duties for the moderator corps.

peteropny writes:

The only way that I could see the program becoming a "good cop/bad copy" scenario is if the moderators made it so, which I can't imagine that they would. My vision is that the moderators, Ambassadors, and TalkBoard members should work together to make FlyerTalk an even better place.

So far, there are only a couple of people who have actually said that they think the idea of having Ambassadors is a bad one, and that lazy people really do need to be told to do a search and not be encouraged.

The rest of the people who are opposed to the program seem to be concerned about three issues:

1. How are the Ambassarors selected, and
2. How are they disciplined.
3. Loss of moderator control

1. Selection:

Under the proposal as written, Ambassaors either nominate themself or are nominated by other members, those nominations are reviewed by TalkBoard which seeks input from the moderators, and then approves or disapproves an Ambassador. Then, if Randy also approves, the Ambassaor is instated.

How specifically would you improve on this process?

2. Discipline:

Under the proposal as written any Ambassador can be removed for any reason by a 2/3rds vote of the TalkBoard, or if Randy desires to remove them.

Now, there are some people who think that all Ambassadors should be immediately removed for any suspension, even a seven day suspension for cross posting. I personally disagree with position primarily because this type of suspension is highly subjective, and further because we have no independent suspension review process in place to determine that all suspension issued have been fair and objective. Until that time, I have greater confidence in the vote of a nine member-elected, fallible TalkBoard members, than I do in the subjective opinion of a single fallible human being.

Honestly, I can't envision any situation where the TalkBoard would fail to remove an Ambassaor who was no longer a credit to the community.

How specifically, would you improve upon this section of the proposal?

3. Loss of Moderator Control:

I may be wrong, but it sure seems like a lot of moderators are opposed to this idea primarily because it wasn't their idea and that is very unfortunate. During our meeting in Phoenix and during the preparation of the proposal, it was very much our intent to work as closely as possible with the moderators to make this program as successful as possible.

I my mind, one of the goals of the program was to bring the TalkBoard and moderators closer together and eliminate the power struggles that I sometimes sense. Hopefully that can still be accomplished.

What exactly can we do to make those moderators who are disturbed by any aspect of the program feel more comfortable?

Until this thread, I allowed myself to be labeled a 'Moderator' because there was no competing or comparable model to juxtapose.

Now that I am understanding about this new 'Ambassador' niche, then I would much prefer being labeled an 'Ambassador', because it is precisely my interest in preemptively keeping my forum welcoming and civil WITHOUT having to resort to Mod disciplinary action unless absolutely a last resort (zero suspensions in 2 years!), that I derive satisfaction about. My tool of choice is the PM button, not the delete button. Where possible, I try and advise a poster to self-edit to maintain their dignity of not having a Mod edit/deletion and it almost always works. Any mod actions that I am forced to take due to egregious TOS issues, I document publicly in a transparent manner for the forum membership to view and understand.

If the connotation of 'Moderator' is too negative for the TB, then kindly consider creating a motion to change the official name of "Moderator' to 'Ambassador' or 'Ambassador/Moderator' because I believe that the vast majority of Mods are already functioning as successful 'Ambassadors' without the official title.

Maybe not just on FT, but in the cyber-culture in general , 'Moderator' has devolved into a neagtive connotation. Whether its a more benign label like Ambassador or Helper or Welcomer or Mayor or Concierge, is not going to materially affect my efforts....but maybe a name change of from 'Moderator' to '????" will positively affect the PERCEPTIONS of the FT membership.




With respect to new Ambassadors joining with existing Moderators, maybe in a larger forum, more around the clock coverage might be desireable. But, in MR, I think that when there is a 'welcoming' or 'use search' problem, either an existing member offers help to a newbie or someone sends an RBP and the Mods can limit any damage.

Certainly, the longed sought after plug-in that has been referenced will ultimately be a 24/7 elecronic 'Ambassador' which will be effective, if implemented.

I've done that. I've thought long and hard about this idea. I've read every idea and concept floated in both the private TB forum where we've been talking about this more or less since Phoenix and every word that has been written here.

And what I am telling you is that I can't think of a better way of acknowledging, encouraging and 'rewarding' ambassador-like behavior in a way that is fair, open, transparent and accountable than is contained in the OP.

You keep saying that you want ambassadors to be held to the same standards as moderators. I keep telling you that imho they are a very different role with FAR (infinitely) less responsibility. Not a SINGLE admin control. Just a title. Nothing more, nothing less. A title that says, 'hey, this person is doing a great job at being welcoming and friendly, and if any newbies have any questions he or she (in addition to a moderator!) might be a good person to ask.'

The OP insulates the process from the sort of abuse we saw with reputation and thread ratings but still keeps the granting of the title accountable (through TB elections) to the posters.

Again, and I can't emphasize this enough, if you have a concrete amendment to this proposal that will make it better at acknowledging, encouraging and 'rewarding' ambassador-like behavior in a way that is fair, open, transparent and accountable then please, please, please, speak up!

If all you want to do is consider logical fallacies, well, meet me in Killarney a week from today and let's find a pub (shouldn't be hard!) and talk logic. 'Cause right now I'm trying to figure out ways to make FT an even better place in the face of somewhat bewildering reaction from some of the moderator corps.

I disagree with your entire hypothesis here but won't be drawn into yet another attempt to discuss moderation or your dissatisfaction with it.

You are wrong, at least as far as I am concerned. This proposal isn't about 'loss of power' but instead creating more problems than it solves and restricts participation - a big no-no for me.

Instead of making wild assumptions about opposition to this proposal, look at the responses you've received, especially ClueByFour's post above. There are reasons stated for lack of support for the proposal, but you seem to be jumping to different conclusions.

The TB has absolutely no purview over moderation, moderator titles, responsibilities, functions or authority. In fact, by design, I don't even know what those are.

AFAIK, moderators are self-selecting and self-policing. If you want to change the title, I would imagine you need to bring that up in the private moderator forum...perhaps on the thread where this issue is being discussed! @:-)

Again though, this initiative is not about perceptions nor a criticism of moderators, nor (cue cameraguy's black helicopters!) an effort to wrest control of moderation.

It is a simple, straightforward attempt to:
1) acknowledge and encourage welcoming and positive posters and
2) allow more people to 'give back' to FT in a more formal way.