I guess I'm just a bit perplexed about the impact (or lack thereof) of my CURRENT 'simple, straightforward attempt to: acknowledge and encourage welcoming and positive posters.

It would be helpful if you could help me identify how I could best service the FT community in the eyes of TB.

In the eyes of RP via the 'Best Moderator Practices' document (which maybe should be shared in public???), that I agreed to, it appears I am doing a satisfactory, if maybe not an exemplary job, because I have not gotten any feedback or disciplinary action about my performance up to this point.

Just to be clear, I am saying this in all sincerity, not snarky/sarcastic, etc.


Overall, what can I do better to morph into the Ambassador niche that has seemingly been identified but unfulfiiled.

Thanks for hearing me out.

I did that. My public thread followed by a decision by Randy (not the moderators, not the TalkBoard, not any centralized committee) is a superior selection approach. It is fair, open, transparent and accountable. It is non-political, which I see as a huge advantage. Do you see this as a deficiency?

My proposal is not susceptible to accusations of secret favoritism, unless you believe that Randy plays favorites. (Do you?) IMHO, it will occupy less of Randy's time than the current proposal. I have addressed your only substantive objection to my proposal: the TOS question.

My proposed changes would take the TB (and the moderators) out of the loop, except in the same capacity as any other FT members. Is that change really so unpalatable? Is the point of having Ambassadors to recognize the members, or to empower the selection committee? What would I do without rhetorical questions?

It's pretty clear that the current proposal lacks critical mass, and I don't see any benefit to continuing to flog it. Why don't you try re-floating the current proposal with the modifications I suggested? You may still believe that it's second best, but perhaps it beats nothing at all.

If nothing happens, the ambassadors (lower case "a") who help us moderators will stay on the job and they won't blink an eye. Still, I'd be gratified to see them get official recognition. They have earned it.

I'm on your side on the standards issue, because I believe it's beneficial to give a constructive outlet to passionate but sometimes hot-headed people who enliven FT.

However your characterization of admin controls as the main difference if off target. I was a de facto moderator on the Southwest forum for YEARS without a title or any admin controls. I didn't need them. Just like beaubo, I take pride in my ability to maintain a calm forum by gentle persuasion. The best Ambassadors would develop that skill over time. It's just my own opinion, but I believe that a sizeable percentage of Ambassadors (although not the hot-headed people I mentioned above) will eventually become moderators, in an entirely natural progression.

The ambassador's role is different from the moderator's more in degree than in kind. Attempting to maintain a wall of separation between the roles is therefore both a bad idea and doomed to fail.

CameraGuy writes:

I must admit that this is the most amusing response of any I have read. Thank you, I really needed a good laugh.

We certainly don't want TalkBoard doing a really great job of anything, now do we?

Since there are several folks on the TB who have been very vocal about not liking moderators it does strike me as somewhat curious that now there is an Ambassador program that is being proposed that sounds as though it will take away from what the moderators currently do. Sheesh - FT sure is becoming quite the bureaucratic organization imo.

I would recommend that perhaps the TB looks at the examples from SanDiego1K and how she welcomes everybody into a forum when she notices they are a "newbie." Additionally, seems to me that most of the moderators don't need any further assistance and when they do it seems that Randy appoints new people to the forums.

I also see snarkiness in a few of the forums but it certainly seems far and few between. Like CluebyFour mentioned I have no clear understanding why the TB is spending time on this topic. Seems like another way to push out moderators instead of the TB supporting what they do wholeheartedly.

I am still a newbie to the mileage run forum, but I can only applaud you. ^

While I am not a moderator, it tells us that it's just unnecessary. If Randy wants to appoint ambassadors, let him. Why there has to be a formal process is beyond me.

But on the other hand, I'm not sure why there is a TalkBoard after FT became property of Internet Brands, so perhaps I might not be the most qualified to comment.

You have been around here long enough to recall that there were OMNI Award Winners at one point in time. I don't recall that there were big elections on the topic, but maybe Catman can refresh my memory there. But the idea of "good FTers doing good things for newbies" does not need a process and nominations.

My suggestion in a previous thread was to give moderators the option to create a sticky "flame free newbie questions" thread the way which FatWallet does on its Finance forum. It encourages people to ask questions and get responsible answers which are more than "for God's sake, search already," and gets them to stick around long enough to understand the depth of the pool, so to speak. In that thread, there would be zero warning for misbehavior.

beaubo: I know nothing of this 'Best Moderator Practices' document of which you speak. But the idea behind this initiative is that if we identify and encourage the type of behavior that you yourself (and nearly all moderators) exemplify then that will make your job that much easier. Really it says nothing at all about you or any other moderator or the job you do/have done. Do you take it that way? Are you insulted that the TB might want to identify, encourage and 'reward' helpful and positive posters????

nsx: same to you. I know you do an incredible job being welcoming and positive. So what's wrong with identifying other posters who do the same and giving them a shiny gold star so others can see and hopefully even want to emulate them!? I disagree with you about the differences between moderators and ambassadors. All it takes to be an ambassador is a kind and giving attitude. As spelled out in the 'Best Moderator Practices' document about which I know nothing it takes a heck of a larger commitment to be a moderator. So try not to think of ambassadors as "jr. moderators." They are not meant to be. Think of it as a shiny gold star that one gets to wear on their shirt identifying them as a welcoming, helpful poster. The sort of star that all moderators and TB members are supposed to be wearing in addition to our other duties as assigned as well in any case.

And as I noted above,nsx, I certainly do appreciate your thoughtful suggestion about allowing local forums to nominate ambassadors. But I simply don't think Randy would allow a thread such as that when it would create such a huge potential for personal attacks. One of Randy's goals, whether it is stated in the best practices or not, is to try prevent situations where people are going to be tempted to get themselves suspended. And I fear that the sort of process that you are suggesting (and that, as I say, I would otherwise wholeheartedly support) would be viewed as just that.

That said, I do not reject the suggestion...or any other constructive suggestion. To the contrary, keep them coming!

No, not junior moderators or moderators in training. But by virtue of their demostrated dedication they are potential candidates for moderator positions, and many of our new moderators are likely to come from their ranks. For that reason they and FT will benefit from a close working relationship with the moderator(s) of their forums. For example, I can see potential benefits from informal copying on some kinds of PMs, albeit to a much lesser degree than for a moderator in training. That really starts to blur any bright line you wanted to draw.

Hey beaubo, speak for yourself.

In the TS/S Forum I'm thinking we need to change the title from "Moderator" to "Delta Force Commando".

Actually, the position of ambassador was conceived in part as a post-moderator retirement activity. A way for moderators who no longer wish to log in every day or keep on top of a forum on a daily basis to continue to give back to the community without all of the obligations of being a moderator.

It was also conceived as a way for those who have no interest in EVER being a moderator to get a shiny star for being who they are anyway: helpful and welcoming posters and, by their example, encourage others to do the same.

It was also conceived in part as a way for folks who may not have always been angels and therefore do not qualify to EVER be moderators to give back to the community if they have demonstrated that they are 'reformed.'

If the ambassador program becomes a breeding ground for moderators then so be it. But it was NOT conceived in any way to replace or supplant moderators or the excellent job you all do. It was also NOT conceived in any way to replace or supplant the moderator-in-training program that the mod corps has apparently initiated.

That's why, in the third or so post of this thread I said that " really, really, really hope we can keep the ambassador program entirely separate from moderation issues and focus on recruiting, rewarding and encouraging positivity..."

Time for the daily reminder to "Play Nice".

Despite what some may believe, the Black Helicopters are not circling (at least they ain't from my 18th story office window). Intelligent pithy debating always wins over mudslinging.

I think that we actually agree here. Ambassadors might eventually become moderators, and most of them probably will not. I just don't want any formal walls to prevent moderators from working closely with Ambassdors who want to develop their online interpersonal skills, working toward future service as a moderator. I didn't read any such walls into the proposal itself (or else I certainly would have commented on that), but I'd like to point out the necessity not to erect such walls. In fact, I'd prefer that the proposal explicitly allow moderators some additional flexibility to share PMs with Ambassadors and vice versa. For one thing, the left hand should know what the right hand is doing.

I go back to my earlier post (I am too busy and too lazy to look for it now)

We don't need any more titles in FT.

The arguing here kinda says it all. We are developing another level of FT hierarchy if we add ambassadors and whatever else is next!

False alternatives. Other selection procedures exist besides popular elections or TB vote. Some have been outlined here.

I like the idea of Ambassadors, and will likely have to duke it out with Cholula to be the first to roll out the welcome mat in TS/S. However, I'm not in favor of the proposal (as written). How so? On procedural grounds it's impractical.