kokonutz

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.

cblaisd

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.

BiziBB

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 ).

ozstamps

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
.

ozstamps

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
.

Markie

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?

Spiff

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.

ClueByFour

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.

Dovster

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.

Jenbel

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.

Spiff

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?

Dovster

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.

NickB

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.

kokonutz

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.

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.

Jenbel

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.