Motion Failed: New TalkBoard Guidelines
Oct 10, 2008 | 5:20 pm
#46
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: NYC (formerly BOS/DCA)
Programs: UA 1K, IC RA
Posts: 60,745
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.
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?
Oct 10, 2008 | 5:36 pm
#47
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: New York City/NY22
Programs: AA Platinum 2.3MM (Lifetime PLT)
Posts: 5,291
Oct 10, 2008 | 5:56 pm
#48
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2000
Location: RDU
Programs: AA LT Gold, Breezy 2
Posts: 12,608
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.
Last edited by ElmhurstNick; Oct 10, 2008 at 5:58 pm Reason: weird UI stuff going on...
Oct 11, 2008 | 10:12 am
#49
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,351
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.
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
Oct 11, 2008 | 11:01 am
#50
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN A-list preferred, United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 22,881
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.
Oct 11, 2008 | 11:43 am
#51
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in PARIS, FRANCE!
Posts: 61,972
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:
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.
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.
Oct 11, 2008 | 11:58 am
#52
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
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!
Oct 12, 2008 | 4:49 am
#53
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: back to my roots in Scotland!
Programs: Tamsin - what else is there to say?
Posts: 47,843
Unfortunately, that's the draft we've just voted down. TB asked for a removal - Randy decided whether to effect it or not, so ultimately, it was left entirely up to him. Of course, if the nay-voters want to change their opinion on their vote, then that's up to them.