|
Originally Posted by ElmhurstNick
(Post 10500881)
In short, I think this business has reached the point where, now that the system upgrades are in place, IB has to consider investing more resources in the people side of management. To me, that means slowly investing in quality control of the user experience, which means an incremental evolution (as in over a year) away from a volunteer-based management of the moderators and the TalkBoard, to management by IB employees who are evaluated based on their ability to maintain a consistent high quality experience for IB's customers - us.
I know that I am in the minority of people who read this particular little part of FT on this topic. I do not have the emotional attachment of however many moderators there are, and probably 25 people who are, were, or want to be TB members. Customers fighting with customers has to stop. And no matter what any of us might think about ourselves and our capabilities, no customer can really make it stop. IB, are you listening? |
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 10502075)
This is the smartest thing that has been posted on FT in a very long time.
IB, are you listening? |
Originally Posted by magiciansampras
(Post 10502075)
This is the smartest thing that has been posted on FT in a very long time.
To be clear, however, I do not think for a minute that the quality of moderation will improve or decline one bit with an IB-employee moderator core. I just think it would refocus a lot of the screaming away from this type of customer vs. customer screaming which is bad for everybody. |
Originally Posted by Spiff
(Post 10497084)
On 9 Oct 2008, the TalkBoard failed to pass 5-4:
Moved by techgirl and seconded by bhatnasx to adopt the following TalkBoard Guidelines: (follow link) Voting Yes: bhatnasx, gleff, Jenbel, Spiff, techgirl Voting No: Cholula, kokonutz, lucky9876coins, Punki Please note that TalkBoard votes require a 2/3 majority to pass. Glen |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 10500803)
Ok, challenge accepted. I will endeavor to create a guidelines draft for reconsideration with plenty of time for the current TB to act on them, if that be the will of 2/3 of the current TB!
If a TB member is suspended the moderators involved must inform Randy, who will decide whether or not to uphold the suspension and whether or not to remove the member from TB. No decision by Randy means no removal. One defect of the earlier drafts was that the TB would not legitimately know that it's not a 7-day suspension until day 8. Only the moderators have first-hand knowledge of the duration, and they are not supposed to tell anyone. Immediately kicking the issue to Randy solves this problem. So, for example, if Randy fails to act it might just be that the suspension was for only 7 days. A second option is a proposal asking Randy to draft the removal provision and add it the TB guidelines, promising Randy that the TB will accept Randy's draft without debate, dissent, or revision. I could support either of these approaches. Perhaps on the private forum you can count heads and get an idea of which option can get closer to unanimity. I'm reasonably confident that either one could get a 2/3 majority. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 10504822)
koko, I had a proposal or two in one of the other threads that might work for a majority. Essentially, it amounts to recognizing that it's Randy's call. Here's a simplified version:
If a TB member is suspended the moderators involved must inform Randy, who will decide whether or not to uphold the suspension and whether or not to remove the member from TB. No decision by Randy means no removal. One defect of the earlier drafts was that the TB would not legitimately know that it's not a 7-day suspension until day 8. Only the moderators have first-hand knowledge of the duration, and they are not supposed to tell anyone. Immediately kicking the issue to Randy solves this problem. So, for example, if Randy fails to act it might just be that the suspension was for only 7 days. A second option is a proposal asking Randy to draft the removal provision and add it the TB guidelines, promising Randy that the TB will accept Randy's draft without debate, dissent, or revision. I could support either of these approaches. Perhaps on the private forum you can count heads and get an idea of which option can get closer to unanimity. I'm reasonably confident that either one could get a 2/3 majority. |
Originally Posted by nsx
(Post 10504822)
A second option is a proposal asking Randy to draft the removal provision and add it the TB guidelines, promising Randy that the TB will accept Randy's draft without debate, dissent, or revision.
Remember, TalkBoard is elected by the general membership to represent the general membership. It is not elected to represent Randy. Even if it were, however, this would be a very poor way to proceed. When TalkBoard passes a motion, it is a recommendation to Randy. It is unthinkable (at least to me) that TalkBoard should ask Randy to tell it what he wants it to recommend to him and promise, in advance, to make the recommendation that Randy wants. Heck, I would even oppose proceeding in this way if TB were to recommend to Randy that he recommend to them to recommend to him to give me all of his miles and points! |
Originally Posted by kokonutz
(Post 10504960)
I think some might claim that that treats TB members differently than other flyertalkers. But the intent, that whether someone should be removed from the TB or not is entirely a question for Randy, is something that I can run up the flagpole.
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 7:40 am. |
This site is owned, operated, and maintained by MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Designated trademarks are the property of their respective owners.