Ambassador proposal reboot
 

At Tom911's (blame HIM!!) urging I put together a new Forum Ambassador program for public discussion.

I left some of the hardest questions as multiple choice options. These are noted by [brackets].

Have fun!

Proposal to establish Flyer Talk Ambassadors

Description of the program:

The Flyer Talk Ambassador program is an effort to develop knowledgeable and friendly FlyerTalk members who will volunteer to serve as Ambassadors for specific forums. They will bear the title "X Forum Ambassador" under their handle and agree to do their best to make sure that all members, especially new FlyerTalkers, understand the ins and outs of that forum as well as the overall FlyerTalk culture. They will work to make posters feel welcome to participate in FlyerTalk.

The title Ambassador is bestowed upon FlyerTalkers in recognition of the efforts made by a FlyerTalker to make FlyerTalk a better and more welcoming place as well as their ongoing commitment to continue to do so.


Program Goals:

The primary goals of this program are to encourage more sign-ups to become active members of the FlyerTalk Community, improve member retention, and provide more currently active members an opportunity to volunteer to contribute to the day-to-day operation of FlyerTalk.


Ambassador Responsibilities:

Make people feel comfortable and really good about participating on FlyerTalk.

Be a positive and welcoming influence for FlyerTalk.

Be available to answer specific questions in and about a forum in a positive and welcoming manner.

New and existing posters may be educated and encouraged to seek out forum Ambassadors for assistance and guidance on how to make the most of the FlyerTalk experience so Ambassadors must be open to helping with this responsibility on an ongoing basis.


Ambassador Qualifications:

Any active FlyerTalk member can volunteer to serve as an Ambassador.

Persons with a gregarious, friendly nature and a good understanding of a specific forum or program are especially encouraged to volunteer.

Volunteers must express a willingness to receive questions from members via FT e-mail or PM and commit to answering the same question in a positive, friendly manner, even after the 100th time the same question has been asked.

To earn the Ambassador title, a poster should be a positive influence on a forum’s community by regularly welcoming new members, keeping discussion positive and, by their example, encouraging other posters to do the same.


Ambassador Identification:

To apply to become an official FT Ambassador, send a PM to the moderator of the forum you would like to assist (moderators are listed at the bottom right-hand side of each forum's front page; in the case of forums that have no moderator(s) specified contact a senior moderator) with the subject line "Ambassador application." The PM should include the forum for which one hopes to serve as an Ambassador, a statement of commitment to adhere to the Ambassador Guidelines as well as links to several threads where a poster’s Ambassador Qualifications are evident. All applicants will be sent a confirmation by PM within 48 hours.


Selection process:

The Moderator(s) of each forum will, on the first day of each even numbered month month, compile a list of all members who have indicated their interest in becoming an official FT Ambassador. Each member's name and personal comment will be added to the list of recommendations in the order received. Forum moderators will refrain from ranking or indicating preference for anyone on the list. However, if the forum moderators have a particular reservation about a volunteer, they may make add a brief note after the member's comment. Moderator comments must be substantiated with supporting links for their reasoning, and be verifiable.

The compiled list of applications will be sent to [Randy Petersen?] [the TalkBoard?] [the moderator corps?] [an anonymous poll in the subject forum?] for approval.

Since one of the goals of the program is to provide more opportunities for involvement, FlyerTalkers will be limited to serving as Ambassador for one forum only.

[Since TalkBoard members and Moderators are expected to act as Ambassadors for all of FlyerTalk and also since one of the goals of the program is to provide more opportunities for involvement, TalkBoard members and Moderators will not be made Ambassadors.] [or not]


Ambassador Guidelines:

The title Ambassador is bestowed by the TalkBoard upon FlyerTalkers who, by their attitude and posts, have demonstrated a commitment to making FlyerTalk a positive and welcoming place. Ambassadors are expected to continue to demonstrate that commitment and continue to meet all of the qualifications criteria set forth for Ambassadors while they hold that title.

An Ambassador may resign their title at any time.

Ambassador is a revocable title that [that forum’s moderator] [the TalkBoard] [a recall process by forum posters] [God] may revoke from a FlyerTalker for conduct unbecoming an Ambassador.

This is much better written -- and the description of the Ambassadors' roles is well-done -- but I still have substantive concerns.

For subject-object agreement, drop the "an" and make "Ambassadors" plural.

I am still completely opposed to any sort of public posting of names and requests for general comments from the membership about those folks who apply.

The compilation should be private, not publicly posted, and the moderators should confer with the TalkBoard members to get their thoughts on nominated candidates. The "how" is a technology issue.

Either "Ambassador" and "title" need to be made plural (and drop the "An"), or change "their" to "his or her."

Part of the expectations should be that an Ambassador will copy the forum's moderator(s) on all correspondence when the Ambassador is acting in that role.

There is also no expectation that Ambassadors have a clean discipline record (even relatively speaking!) That's a non-starter for me, and I think a generous proposal would include that someone could not be an Ambassador who has had a suspension in the previous twelve months.

All in all, a) I am still not convinced of the need of another level of bureaucracy particularly with the envisioned student-council-type "hot or not" public comments; b) if there must be such a program, it can be yet simpler (while keeping the nicely-done description of roles/spirit): let the moderators select folks in their forums if they feel a need to do so. The TalkBoard could suggest folks. After all, per Randy and per his stated expectations of moderators, the first job of moderators is to be..... ambassadors. :)

Thank you kokonutz (and cblaisd) for this revision.
This proposal look workable, if there can be agreement on most details.

I'm still unsure of where Ambassadors are required, with the exception of forums mentioned previously (AA & TS/S).
To understand how these details will work I'd consider where and how will Ambassadors improve the FT experience? For whom?

Please consider any information gaps (info or even just your personal experiences as Moderators and/or TB members); there could be examples that could illustrate your arguments which could help those of us who have not had the same oppotunities on FT, so may be unaware of your issues in these roles.

This can be an informative discussion as well as a political one and I am hoping for the former, so the stated intention of the proposal is achieved and the FT experience in certain areas is improved.

(I look forward to the debate :)).

I personally see absolutely no need whatever for formal ambassadors, as all main forms have them anyway now IMHO, but that's just one view.

Top marks to Koko for a proposal that clearly took a ton of time to get down onto paper - I can see many hours work in the submission above. ^ ^

Glen
.

IMHO - clearly a moderator tinted POV. ;)

Quite a number of TB members have been elected by the membership without that rider, over many years. Me included.

The members therefore seem to have no issue with it whatever for Talkboard election, and there should be no difference in this case - if serving member needs are what we are talking about here.

Forum mods seem allowed under this proposal to attach negative comment onto the application it seems to me, and I am sure that will suffice to see that raised. @:-)

My view in that Forum Mods should not have any role in the selection process as they themselves often come and to from Forums. Superb candidates might well be blocked by an individual given any level of input. Human nature - sorry, and I can certainly see that occurring in some instances.

And a final point - this part seems counter-productive. For instance mods often serve several forums, and seem to cope readily so what end does this suggestion serve?

"Since one of the goals of the program is to provide more opportunities for involvement, Flyertalkers will be limited to serving as Ambassador for one forum only."

If one excellent Candidate spends most of their time in say Avis and Marriott Forums, and wants to apply, and no-one else does - how does FT benefit then?

Glen
.

I have agree that whilst this proposal is better it contains more than a couple of issues:

(1) It is a TalkBoard proposal which places responsibility on Moderators, a group over which they have no control. This is a concern as other TB's could pass resolutions, which could instruct Moderators to undertake other, less palatable actions. Moderation has always been seen as independent of TB.
(2) It makes requirements of Moderators which the Moderator group has not discussed nor agreed standard procedures or policies.
(3) Again, there is no standard of behaviour for Ambassadors. Why is it not possible to include criteria which prevent someone being an Amb based on upheld bans? I have made several suggestions about a way to balance peoples desire to serve with any previous bad behaviour.
(4) There seems to be a few too many [XXX] in the whole process for my linking. It is either a proposal or it's a moveable feast. You cannot have both.
(5) Is there a TB seconder?

I have a similar concern. While past bad behavior might be excused, I think there should be an automatic removal for any ambassador who receives a suspension while they are an ambassador. A successful appeal would reinstate a dismissed ambassador.

Also, I think anyone should be able to be an ambassador, regardless of their current volunteer service.

Fantastic. I nominate Jim Traficant for UA Ambassador. I mean, the people of Ohio elected him, so he must be an okay guy, despite the fact that he's sitting in a US Federal Prison. Perhaps we can get him internet access in the pen (much like a suspended Ambassador under your theory, he does not currently have access to FT).

The logic here that winning a popularity contest (by promising things that cannot be delivered) to a body that refuses to police it's own, breaking the community rules, etc is "good enough" is simply mind boggling.

I maintain that a 30-day suspension upheld by Randy should be grounds for automatic removal of an Ambassador, and I daresay I've yet to hear a single rational counterpoint. The implied argument that someone with one or more suspensions from FT of greater than 30 days would make an OK ambassador boggles the mind It's transparently self-serving.

Nor will you hear a single rational counterpoint -- as you well know.

Such a counterpoint would require discussion of moderation and how it is applied on FlyerTalk. To be effective, it would have to cite specific examples.

This would be in violation of the TOS. Of course, you knew all of that very well.

If the only arguments you can give against it are black helicopter theories, then I'm with Clue I'm afraid.

If Ambassadors are meant to represent what is good about FT, then having one serving a 30 day suspension is kind of contradictory. Don't do what I do, do as I say, and all those hypocritical type statements come to mind.

So, since we will not be discussing items that the TalkBoard has no purview over (eg moderation, global warming, Hello Kitty, etc), shall we remain on-topic, please?

You are absolutely right, which is why I said that such arguments would have to be backed by specific examples. That is, of course, not allowed under the TOS.

The moment that someone says that moderators should have a major role in deciding something, he is putting the question of moderation into play. If a reply to him is off-topic, than his original statement is even more so.

If that is so, then it seems to me that the conclusion to which you would be driven is that we should not have an ambassador programme at all.
For the ambassador programme to work, Ambs and Mods have to work in partnership. What spectacle would we be giving to new members if there is open warfare (or even just cold war) betwen an Amb and a Mod?
I would, in fact go in the opposite direction, and give a much more central role to mods in identifying whether ambs are needed in the forum they moderate and, if so, who should or should not be put forward as an amb.

TB members and Ambs do not have the same function and drawing parallels between them is a non-starter.

Ambs are here to welcome new members and provide guidance to them. Excuse me, but 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.

It is a bit like having GWB explaining the importance of the UN security council and the need to avoid unilateral action.

Unless, of course, you take the view that the ToS are a lot of tosh and a big joke to which new members should pay no attention whatsoever, which would have the merit to be a consistent view, albeit one with which some of us might disagree. :)

Oh, and please note, incidentally, that this is from an FT nobody, and therefore wearing ordinary member's spectacles, rather than mod or TB tinted ones.;)

Firstly, I refuse to take blame OR credit for the above proposal. It is mostly a cut-and-paste job from lucky and Punki's original proposal, merged with essexjay's counter-proposal, peppered and spiced with suggestions from the debate on the original motion. The only truly original idea is to leave the options open for discussion rather than putting forward a fully formed straw man.

I fully expect this debate to get mired down in talk about who is 'worthy' of being an ambassador and who is not and even more so who is 'worthy' of identifying those posters.

To me, though, that gets away from the original intents of this idea: to acknowledge people who are friendly and welcoming posters, to give an opportunity to more posters to 'give back' to FT in a formal capacity and, in accomplishing those two goals, setting up a 'motorist assistance/WalMart Greeter/information desk/FT docent' program.

If that is impossible because people want to set up complicated rules and procedures then it'll never happen. The key to success is simplicity.

As for the TOS question, heck, who better to let folks know where the TOS lines are then those who have been on both sides of them? Who better to lecture about the evils of drugs than former crackheads? You don't see a whole lot of AA sponsors, for example, who are not in recovery themselves. If we are going to make it about telling people where the TOS lines are maybe we should ONLY allow people who have been suspended to serve. :rolleyes:

To answer cluex4's question, sure, I'd have no problem having Jim Trafficant come back to government as a Smithsonian docent. Why not?

Because the bottom line to that whole question to me is: I simply don't hold a museum docent to the same standards that I hold a museum security guard. One has keys, the other doesn't. QED.

YMMV.

False analogy. Who better to tell someone where the TOS lines are - someone who has always kept on the right side of them, or someone who didn't know where they were and got a/many suspension(s) as a result? Your suggestion that those who have never had a suspension don't know the TOS is frankly ridiculous - I've never had a suspension or warning precisely because I do know what the rules are. I'd rather seek advice on TOS issues from someone who has not been disciplined than someone who has a handful of warnings and suspensions to their name - one clearly doesn't get what the TOS says!

If Ambassadors are to be advising on TOS issues (and where has that come from? shouldn't ambassadors be diverting such questions to the mods for definitive answers? Mods are still capable of assisting members and answering such questions, even if this scheme goes ahead. ), then it also becomes more important that they can work closely with forum mods as NickB points out.

I would love to keep such a scheme simple. Simplest way would be for forum mods to simply ask (or accept volunteers) to help out in this area. Of course, the anti-moderation politics means that will never be accepted as a process, meaning we've got to bring in external people and vetting and checking and double checking and cross-checking and referencing and votes and meetings and cake baking competitions (ok, maybe the last is a slight exaggeration ;)). And its' a real shame as the more bureaucratic it becomes, the more ridiculous the scheme becomes - Cholula's (I think it was his - apologies if i have misrepresented!) way of selection seems to be about the simplest, fairest way of doing it and even that involves quite a lot of bureaucracy.

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.

Um, :rolleyes: = 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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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?

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?

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

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.

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.

Some of us don't actually need titles to be helpful
 

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.

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.

It doesn't have to be, but it can be. It's up to the member. Probability of success meant your chance of having an expanded role later. If you don't want an expanded role later, that's OK.

I thought this had been voted down previously? Is this the ONLY thing that TB has on its mind because there are two people on the TB who want it? I don't understand why it's being brought up again. Honestly. . .as SkiAdcock mentioned there are already people on this board/community who do this as a matter of course.

Why is this such a "big" issue? What am I missing? :confused:

You want input/suggestions? Why don't we just move off this topic and move onto something that might be productive?

Because it was Randy's initiative and because the earlier proposal was not a concensus proposal. This discussion has an excellent chance to show whether or not a concensus is possible.

So why didn't Randy propose it then in here? And since it's his board he could just implement it. If you look at the previous 10 pages of input from folks it didn't seem like this was a big "yes!" in terms of people seeing a need for this.

Maybe as he created a Talkboard to do exactly such things?

Koko clearly has taken many hours on this alone reading post #1. I feel sure Randy would rather have that kind of input than doing it himself.

You are entitled to say you do not feel it is needed (on that I agree with you as I've posted earlier) but to belittle and denigrate those TB members (below) who have taken a lot of time on this looks pretty churlish - to me.

Glen

I see a lot of moderators in place without such a program or position.

The Human Nature Argument cuts both ways, oz -- TB members can be just as capable of Selection Vendetta.

That is true, but there are several differences:

1. A TB member can not decide anything on his own. All TB decisions require a 2/3rds majority so a member with a prejudice is going to have to explain his reasons to the others if he hopes to convince them.

2. TB decisions are publicized -- meaning that you would be able to see who voted in your favor and who did not.

3. TB members are elected for a two year term. Those who engage in vendettas are liable to find themselvs voted out.

Generally speaking, yes of course. However, the OP's proposal is silent on points 1 and 2. Point 3 applies to mods as well.

Mods are elected for a two-year period? That certainly comes as a very big surprise to me.