mikey1003

I still think that this is totally unnecessary. Nutz you did a wonderful job in organizing and putting down your thoughts for the "reboot" You deserve a thanks.

But the concept is still flawed. We don't need any more titles or layers of workers. Every time that I read the original proposal and thread and now this one, I am reminded of the quote from George Orwell's Animal Farm "All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others"

There are plenty of FTers who help out, welcome newbies and answer questions and they don't need titles.

kokonutz

Um, = sarcasm/joshing.

And these types of 'this type of poster is better than that type of poster' is exactly what I am making fun of with my sarcasm/joke. Because to me it is silly, unproductive and totally misses the point of this concept.

Can someone who has been suspended meet the criteria listed above to be an ambassador? Yes, of course. Can people who have not been suspended meet those criteria? Yes, of course. The criteria are about people's attitude and willingness to help, not about their suspension records or lack thereof.

YMMV.

It grew from NickB's comment that "I have severe doubts on the credibility of someone explaining to a newbie issues relating to ToS when that person has recently been found in breach of such ToS." Of course, that responsibility is NOT spelled out in the proposal, but I can see why he might think ToS questions might be natural question folks might ask Ambassadors.

If you look at the proposal, you could use enough of the bracketed options to put just that process in place.

The obvious downside, of course, is that with no oversight, straight moderator selection of ambassadors could easily become very 'cliquish,' as moderators decide that only the people they know and like should be made Ambassadors. And you are correct: some feel that the moderator selection process itself has already become that way which might also make such a selection process unpopular with some posters.

RichMSN

I find it remarkably convenient that you challenge us to provide a rational counterpoint that involves a subject that cannot be discussed here. Quite convenient.

nsx

Correct. I'm reluctantly beginning to conclude that having a formal Ambassador designation is going to be much more trouble than it's worth to FT. Centralized selection = trouble.

You want simple? I'll give you simple. Let each Moderator choose any number of assistants, subject to Randy's OK. The assistants get a title of some sort and agree to help identify problem posts and proactively help new users. Pretty much like several people already do in the active forums. The moderators know who the helpers are.

Some of those helpers are opinionated and outspoken enough to have violated the TOS now and then. I personally don't have a problem with that, especially if the violations are not recent. In fact, as you mentioned, people who have erred in the past are in an excellent position to explain how they changed. There are often the most passionate posters who have the time and energy to help, and moderators know better than anyone how great it can be to channel that energy postively.

Just leave assistant selection with the moderators. If anyone here is concerned that he or she might be unfairly blackballed by all the moderators, I can assure you that moderators don't all agree on much of anything. Just like any other group of FT members. With decentralized selection of assistants and no pre-set limit on their number, anyone wanting such an opportunity should be able to find one in a quiet corner of FT. Working as an assistant, even in a quiet forum, is great practice for being a better contributor. You'll get accustomed to the friendliness of the smaller forums and carry that attitude all over FT.

The formal title has two advantages: it lets newbies know where to turn in addition to the moderators, and it feeds the ego of the assistant. (Many FTers are status junkies, whether we admit it to ourselves or not.) I would like my helpers to get a title, but not if the price of this is the creation of another focal point for resentments and politicking.

Spiff

I'm also becoming more convinced that it's too much trouble to get consensus on this ambassador idea.

I'm extremely unlikely to support a proposal that does not include automatic removal of an ambassador who receives a suspension. Other TB members feel differently and are unlikely to support a proposal with this provision.

Perhaps the status quo is indeed a better choice.

ClueByFour

Try this: Read the "Randy Upheld" suspension part--IOW, you can remove moderation from the equation because the judgment call (which is really the only leg that the vociferous anti-mod Talkboard members have to stand on) has been upheld by the Man-in-Charge.

There is nothing to talk about that can't be discussed here on that subject, much as you would really like us to believe there is a man behind the curtain.

Again--I'm waiting for any rational reason why someone with a 30day or greater (upheld by Randy) should either be an Ambassador or not be immediately removed.

RichMSN

This doesn't change my feelings on the subject one bit.

Edited to add: MAIN REASON: See Dov's post, below mine.

Dovster

Question for TalkBoard Topics mods:

Are we permitted to discuss the details of how people get suspended and how/when/if Randy reviews these suspensions and issues a decision?

If so, then I can answer ClueByFour's post, citing specific instances (so as to be free of the "Black Helicopter" accusations). If not, then ClueByFour's posts should simply be ignored.

nsx

Under my proposal in this thread, you'd only have to find one moderator willing to take you on as an assistant. Just one. How hard could that be, unless you are being choosy about the forum you want to serve?

RichMSN

We would be choosy. I read 3 forums regularly and a few others sporadically. Why would I wish to be an ambassador in a forum I don't read?

wharvey

Dovster,

You cannot talk about any specific examples of suspensions publicly. That policy is very clear and has been repeated by Randy several times.

Sorry.

William

nsx

Because you want to give back to FT and you are willing to work your way up from an entry-level helper position. Plenty of CEOs began by working in the stockroom. IMHO this path will have a much higher probability of success than starting off in a contentious forum.

Dovster

Thank you, William. That was my understanding, too. Of course, without doing so it is impossible to answer ClueByFour's post. At the very most, all I could do is make unsubstantiated accusations which would be dismissed as seeing "Black Helicopters".

Indeed, I would not expect any reasonable person to accept what I was saying without my backing it up by citing (and in some cases, linking to) specific examples.

SkiAdcock

Received this via PM yesterday from an FTer I've never met.

"Hi Sharon,

I have learned a great deal from your posts, especially, in the Marriott forum and look up to you as a “mentor” of sorts. Thank you very much for your efforts and assistance along the way. Your tip on the ‘free red bus’ from LHR to the Marriott and Ren have been very useful. I have passed this nugget on to several friends. So thanks from all of us.

If you are ever passing through YYZ and have a couple of hours to spare and would like to get-together for drinks, lunch or dinner, send me a PM. It would be my pleasure to meet you."

While I think the concept of ambassadors is a good one, I think a lot of FTers who are helpful will be helpful whether they have a title or not. Speaking only for myself I'm not going to stop being helpful to others if I'm not listed as an ambassador. I'm helpful because I've learned a lot from FT, and I want to give back.

That there's so much disagreement on the program itself & selection criteria given the concept is supposed to be a helpful/friendly one I find a bit ironic. And unless it can get sorted out I would guess it won't be approved by the Talkboard.

If the program/concept does continue I would vote for the simple method. Mods know which FTers are quite helpful in their forums, so having a mod ask a FTer (or more than one depending on the forum) if they'd be willing to act as an ambassador after outlining the duties & they say yes, subject to Randy's approval, would probably be the simplest method for selection. To give more than one FTer the opportunity to serve, perhaps a 1-year term?

OVMV. Cheers.

RichMSN

Probability of success? I don't get it. Entry-level helper position? I find that condescending.

Contentious forums would need ambassadors, too.

Frankly, I don't see this role as something on the pathway to something greater and more glorious. It's not a moderator-in-training or in-waiting role. If that's the thoughts of others, though, I think the entire proposal is lousy.