Cholula

I'm not commenting on how the motion was written since I didn't write it. But the implication in everything TB does is that it'll be run by Randy for approval. We advise Randy on various matters and make suggestions to him which he is free to accept or reject. I don't see the Ambassador program as being any different.

To be perfectly honest, the role of all members is helping the moderators in the various forums. And by that I mean reporting bad posts, staying on topic, not disrupting the forum, etc. So, yes, I envision the Ambassador working closely with the mods much as s/he is probably already doing.

I have no idea if this motion will pass or fail but my prediction is that if it fails, it'll be primarily because of the complexity of the motion. There's probably a paragraph or two that almost anybody can take exception with.

So if the various TB members think this is a good idea overall but object to a couple specific elements of the motion, they may vote to reject the whole proposal. Or they may object to a point or two but decide this is a good enough idea that they don't want to throw the baby out with the bathwater, to borrow an expression from Momma Cholula, and vote to accept it warts and all.

This would almost require the Ambassador to read every post in every thread all the time to catch the nuance of a FT veteran poster posting in a new forum. But yes, if the Ambassador catches this type of post, s/he should definitely welcome the poster.

But I'll let you in on a dirty little "secret". Not even the mods read every post in every thread all the time. We do the best we can with the time we have but we also depend on the members letting us know when something needs attention. And I see the Ambassadors working the same way.


There are members, and I can think of a number off-hand, who are models of decorum in their TS/S posts and their posts elsewhere on FT. And they're not angels in TS/S and devils in OMNI or elsewhere on FT. These are the folks who are consistently good, helpful citizens wherever and whenever they post and who I'd like to see as Ambassadors.

RichMSN

Sounds like the application process for another FT volunteer position, actually, at least in my personal experience. Why would this be any different?

RichMSN

+1

kokonutz

As cholula says, everything we do gets run by Randy.

The TB has absolutely zero administrative power on FT. Not a single edit or admin feature/function. All we can ever do is suggest things to Randy and the HoM which is either accepted or rejected and implemented or not. Granted, Randy has rarely pulled out his veto pen and typically administratively enacts TB recommendations, but I think that says more about the difficulty in achieving the level of consensus required to pass a TB motion than anything else. @:-)


As I said early on, I realize there is a natural inclination to compare Ambassadors to Moderators. But really, that is like comparing a cruise director to a cop. An ambassador's entire job description is to be a smiling face and offer assistance. A moderator's job description may include being a smiling face and offering assistance, but their overall job AND authority is infinitely broader. One can compare a cruise director to a cop, but ultimately I just don't see that being a productive exercise in terms of creating the program...totally different jobs, totally different focuses, totally different skill set, etc, etc, etc.

tcook052

You mean I would get a 'welcome' if I ventured into the NZ forum for the first time? Who would know it was actually my first time visiting that forum? Sorry but this makes little sense to me as non-newbies should know enough from their time on FT to read the stickies and forum FAQ which most feature and can manage FT search that newbie type questions should be almost eliminated. Now sheer laziness can't be encouraged and veterans who are too lazy to search or make any attempt to find the answer to their question IMHO should receive a curt reply from forum regulars, but that's just MHO.

Cholula

Yes you would, as I stated in an earlier post, if the forum Ambassador recognized that you were new to the forum. Veterans in one forum can be wide-eyed rank amateur newbies in a new, complex and busy forum.


I hope to see the day on FlyerTalk when there is no such thing as a dumb question from a newbie or veteran alike.

Or where a member accuses another member of being lazy because they don't want to spend a half-hour searching for the answer to a question that a forum regular could, politely, answer for them in 5 seconds. And which I've done countless times over the last eight years.

And somehow I've managed to never suggest someone search for their answer. In the time it would take me to post that "snarky" reply, I could give the answer requested, make the member happy and help keep the forum a warm, welcoming place. But maybe that's just me.

If you see some of the earlier posts in this thread, we are looking for personality types that will answer the same tired, old question for the 10,000th time with as much tact and goodwill as the first time they answered it. And there are folks out there that'll do this.

gleff

I am going to vote against the idea in its current incarnation, though I think the concept itself has some potential.

I don't think it's a good idea for the TalkBoard to be involved in the actual thicket of designating Ambassadors and monitoring their performance.

I like the idea of the TalkBoard creating such a program, though I think it needs more work before actual launch. But I don't think we're well positioned to run it day to day. And I don't think we're likely to have sufficient knowledge of posters across all relevant forums to make a decent judgment, either.

I also don't like this being bestowed 'politically' from outside of a forum. Rather, I think that each forum really ought to be honoring its own. We'd have to think through how this would work, but I'd really like to see this ultimately be a kind of 'bottom-up' honor for the knowledgeable, helpful, welcoming posters in each forum.

And I also don't want to exclude anyone from participating, either. It's hard to imagine not asking that lucky9876coins act in this capacity in the UA forum...

Cholula

In another forum this morning, and kind of dove-tailing on one of gleff's points above, the suggestion was made that it might be preferable if either the moderators of a forum or the forum itself decide who should be Ambassadors.

This was my response:

If this concept is going to work long-term, I think we need to remove even the slightest suggestion of secret votes, cronyism and/or politics and let the individual forums nominate their own candidates.

mikey1003

I'm sorry, but "the snarkiness" makes FT interesting because some people in any community are snarky. Just as some people are helpful and warm.

If we were all Stepford people, FT would be boring as Hell!

A lot of new sign ups, or 1st posts, are to find out something specific. Then they either lurk or move on. Many are airline people that come in to vent. Some get pi$$ed of and dont come back. Most stay. This is life

I still stand by my thoughts that the last thing we need is more titles. The people that voluntarily help, will continue to do so. If they don't, someone else will stand up and do it.

We do not need any more titled royalty. Unless everyone gets to pick their own title.

mikey1003

Yeppers!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

tcook052

While I hear and appreciate what you are saying, I can't subscribe to the same philosphy and would therefore not make a good Amb. as I don't think it too much to expect veterans who know, or should know, of the excellent FT tools and how to use them before asking a question. I can only imagine the signal to noise ratio if everyone got lazy and didn't even bother trying to find the answer on their own and so can't think laziness is a trait to be encouraged, especially given the message that sends to new arrivals.

Cholula

Yeah, of course we will always have the snarky members among us.

We can just shrug our shoulders and accept it.

Or, and I prefer this approach, we can recognize those among us who make an everyday effort to be helpful and friendly to their fellow members and give them the title of Ambassador in recognition.

Ambassadors would not be titled royalty here on FT. Different than almost any FT title, this one would be earned.

TalkBoard Members are elected to their title.

Evangelists and Legends post their way to a title.

Ambassadors earn their title based on their exemplary FT history.

I'd like to think that this Ambassador program could help change the culture around here, if only in a small way, by showing that we encourage and are willing to recognize friendly, helpful behavior.

Markie

Well in fact that is not quite the way under this proposal is it?
Selection by the TalkBoard is enough and as there is no criteria related to the proposed Ambassadors history, they could be a poster of any quality, reputation or banning history.

Punki

This is a most interesting post, Markie:

Actually, the selection criteria is covered several times in this most excellent propoosal, which I, like Cholula did not write. Here for instance:

here:

and here, for example:

How would you suggest that the Ambassadors be selected?

nsx

Is there some reason these things surface as full-blown proposals for a vote before, rather than after, we have a chance to kick the tires in this forum? Nobody can think of everything, and the comments here could have improved the wording before it was formally proposed. Seriously, Punki, what would have been the harm in asking for comments first, then editing the proposal to accommodate some of the concerns?

Punki, you and I have the very same idea of what makes a good ambassador. I have posted several times that the way to show one's qualifications to be an ambassador is to just do the job without any official title or sanction. The people I know who act as ambassadors do it for love, not for status. They might appreciate a title, but they certainly won't take their marbles and go home if they don't get a title.

I am wary of taking a concept that works quite well as an informal arrangement and converting it to a centralized, formal program. I can't see how a centralized group, any centralized group, could be in a better position than the forum participants and its moderators to know who has exhibited the necessary passion, dedication, and welcoming spirit to be a good ambassador. Frankly, I think FT would be better off forgetting the whole idea than having any centralized group appoint official ambassadors.

Ideally, ambassadors should select themselves by doing the job, and that would be the end of it. Members of the forum could call them ambassadors or greeters or nothing at all. I originally thought that having an official FT title would be a nice perk, but the current proposal has made me realize two flaws:

1. [*]

If we can find a way to let each forum identify its ambassadors by acclamation (which would naturally be based on a history of value provided) renewable on some regular time frame, I could once again favor having an official title. But the best ambassadors will still be happy to do the job without a title.

Incidentally, I don't believe that TOS violation history has any bearing on qualification to be an ambassador. Some of the best ambassadors will come from the ranks of those who needed some time to rein in their rhetoric while retaining their original passion for FT. I say good for them: They have shown that they can make the necessary effort.