Randy, please go back to the old policy concerning posting about moderation
Nov 1, 2007, 2:00 pm
#1
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 68,956
Randy, please go back to the old policy concerning posting about moderation
"Note to moderators: Please do not delete this thread or close it pending "Randy's review", which too often effectively consigns it to oblivion. I will not be making any personal attacks on any moderators, nor will I be discussing the policies under which moderation is handled. Thus, there is no TOS violation here. What I will be doing is asking Randy to change his own policy concerning discussion of these issues.
Randy, when I first joined FT you allowed members to post on ORP any objections they had either to specific actions taken by moderators or to general moderation policies. This admittedly resulted in quite a few very contentious threads but IMHO they were healthy for FlyerTalk, in that they allowed the air to be cleared and for posters who felt that they had been ill-handled to move on.
Today, this is no longer the case. Initially, you disallowed posts concerning specific moderator actions, saying that you viewed them as personal attacks. Later, this became expanded to include discussions of general moderation policies.
This, of course, has not ended dissatisfaction with moderation but merely covered it up. In fact, it not only hides it from the general membership but also from the moderators themselves and from you.
You believe that only a handful of posters are not completely satisfied with moderation. It may well be true that most are afraid to post their complaints here, knowing that it can result in a suspension, but that does not mean that the complaints -- whether valid or not -- don't exist. You may also feel that because you allow appeals to be sent to you that you are aware of every complaint. That, too, would be an error. Often members don't write to you because they feel that they have little chance of success, even with a very valid appeal.
Moreover, there is a numbers game at work here. There are over 150,000 registered FlyerTalkers and you could well believe that if 15,000 of them are unsatisfied, that means that 90% are completely happy with moderation. That would be misleading. You undoubtedly have access to precise figures but I would guesstimate that there are somewhere between 1000-3000 members who provide most of the posts. In this case, if as few as 500 are unsatisfied with the moderation, there is a serious problem which should be recognized.
Moreover, I believe that knowing that his actions were open to public scrutiny made it less likely for a moderator in those days to abuse his authority.
I very strongly urge you to return to the previous policy of allowing both moderation policies and specific moderation issues to be discussed on ORP. The only prohibition I would enforce would be a ban on true personal attacks (eg: it would be all right for me to say that "Mod X erred by giving me this suspension because of A, B, and C" but I would not be allowed to say that "Mod X is an idiot").
Randy, you have said that you view yourself as the protector of the moderators, and given the yeoman work that is done by the group as a whole, that is very understandable -- but it is even more important that you view yourself as the protector of all FlyerTalk members."
Randy, when I first joined FT you allowed members to post on ORP any objections they had either to specific actions taken by moderators or to general moderation policies. This admittedly resulted in quite a few very contentious threads but IMHO they were healthy for FlyerTalk, in that they allowed the air to be cleared and for posters who felt that they had been ill-handled to move on.
Today, this is no longer the case. Initially, you disallowed posts concerning specific moderator actions, saying that you viewed them as personal attacks. Later, this became expanded to include discussions of general moderation policies.
This, of course, has not ended dissatisfaction with moderation but merely covered it up. In fact, it not only hides it from the general membership but also from the moderators themselves and from you.
You believe that only a handful of posters are not completely satisfied with moderation. It may well be true that most are afraid to post their complaints here, knowing that it can result in a suspension, but that does not mean that the complaints -- whether valid or not -- don't exist. You may also feel that because you allow appeals to be sent to you that you are aware of every complaint. That, too, would be an error. Often members don't write to you because they feel that they have little chance of success, even with a very valid appeal.
Moreover, there is a numbers game at work here. There are over 150,000 registered FlyerTalkers and you could well believe that if 15,000 of them are unsatisfied, that means that 90% are completely happy with moderation. That would be misleading. You undoubtedly have access to precise figures but I would guesstimate that there are somewhere between 1000-3000 members who provide most of the posts. In this case, if as few as 500 are unsatisfied with the moderation, there is a serious problem which should be recognized.
Moreover, I believe that knowing that his actions were open to public scrutiny made it less likely for a moderator in those days to abuse his authority.
I very strongly urge you to return to the previous policy of allowing both moderation policies and specific moderation issues to be discussed on ORP. The only prohibition I would enforce would be a ban on true personal attacks (eg: it would be all right for me to say that "Mod X erred by giving me this suspension because of A, B, and C" but I would not be allowed to say that "Mod X is an idiot").
Randy, you have said that you view yourself as the protector of the moderators, and given the yeoman work that is done by the group as a whole, that is very understandable -- but it is even more important that you view yourself as the protector of all FlyerTalk members."
Last edited by Spiff; Nov 1, 2007 at 4:21 pm Reason: Moderation discussion, Randy see copied deleted thread for full text
Nov 9, 2007, 1:39 am
#2
Founder of FlyerTalk
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,540
Dovster:
you make some assumptions here that have no factual background whatsoever and simply do not match up with anything i have ever tested or measured. That really makes it difficult to enter a reasonable dialogue and hope you understand. I'd like to try and answer this bit by bit but think it best to keep it closed. There are a group of five members which if you researched the threads within this forum are pretty good at stalking answers and offering up their snarkiness. It is because of this type behavior of some members that causes me not try and control an an answer to your question, but simply to be able to answer it. You know, if this had not been closed, i can guarantee there would be 23 posts in the middle of this answer, and while you may believe they would have all been supporting your point, i know almost for fact that only five of them would have.
But anyway, you and i have never failed to enjoy dialogue. But in little chunks as I really am traveling a lot these days.
I'll start at the bottom. I just can't accept what you suggest as allowing members to be able to post "it would be all right for me to say that "Mod X erred by giving me this suspension because of A, B, and C." You are a smart man. It starts with the base rules for all members, not just the Mods. We don't allow the average member to be displayed or tried in public. Sure, some members try and do that but hopefully we catch some (maybe not all) of that. So why would we make an exception for Mods? The problem with your suggest is that quickly members will make decisions only based on a single side of a story. What about the rights of the Mod to tell his/her side, especially when a member might have been warned previously. Of the fact, and this is the key, that it was simply a judgment call? Permitting a single side of any story is more harmful of anything we will ever do on FlyerTalk. Here's an example. Recently I denied an appeal to a member who posted this: "thanks for your very useful and constructive comments
You obviously new, normally I'd say welcome to FT but I will guess you'll not be here long. From your handle and pathetic needless comment on this thread it obvious you don't have any intention of providing useful information here. Can I recommend a tall bridge to walk off?"
This member was upset that they got suspended (they had been warned before about similar posts) and just did not see it as a personal attack. The Moderator made a decision it was in combination that they had had a prior warning. This type of post is unacceptable in my book as well.
Now, what would prevent the member to post up "I was recently suspended by a Mod who did not like me. I made a reply to a member and the Moderator called it a personal attack. Just another example of how much censorship there is here on FlyerTalk."
OK, there is no requirement of what the post that was made by the member. Members who don't even know this member or what forum it might have been posted in will now assume that it is "another" example of censorship. Fair or not, the trial has already begun and ended. I'd prefer that things like this are handled in the current manner in which they are. You know, some will say this was not a personal attack when they read the post. I believe it was and certainly not indicative of the way i hope our members behave. But nonetheless, this member believed they were OK to post this type of thing. Again, we don't try our everyday members in public for stupid posts (oh, some really try) and nor will we be that uncivilized to do the same with our Volunteers.
When you say that I view myself as the "protector of the moderators," I think you might have inadvertently left out the second part of that in that i have also said i was the protector of all our members. In fact, if you were to ask our Moderators, they will tell you that when i tell them about my views on our appeals process, i make it very clear (as in VERY CLEAR) that in an appeals process, i do not represent them. And in fact, i do not represent the member. I represent FlyerTalk and i cannot help them in any way make a case for the outcome of an appeal.
You also mention "don't write to you because they feel that they have little chance of success." Again, i think you may be lacking some information and that's OK, but if you were to go ask members why fly and fly CO to see the yanks, both of whom recently won appeals, they might tell you that the system does work. I did not feel the Mods made a mistake, I just felt that with "Delayed Instant Replay" I saw something else. A judgment call by the Mods in these two cases and a judgment call by me.
So, a start to your answer? Again, refreshingly wonderful that there is not a lot of other members between you and i having this conversation and as soon as i complete my reply, you will have a chance to follow up the question. Thank you.
you make some assumptions here that have no factual background whatsoever and simply do not match up with anything i have ever tested or measured. That really makes it difficult to enter a reasonable dialogue and hope you understand. I'd like to try and answer this bit by bit but think it best to keep it closed. There are a group of five members which if you researched the threads within this forum are pretty good at stalking answers and offering up their snarkiness. It is because of this type behavior of some members that causes me not try and control an an answer to your question, but simply to be able to answer it. You know, if this had not been closed, i can guarantee there would be 23 posts in the middle of this answer, and while you may believe they would have all been supporting your point, i know almost for fact that only five of them would have.
But anyway, you and i have never failed to enjoy dialogue. But in little chunks as I really am traveling a lot these days.
I'll start at the bottom. I just can't accept what you suggest as allowing members to be able to post "it would be all right for me to say that "Mod X erred by giving me this suspension because of A, B, and C." You are a smart man. It starts with the base rules for all members, not just the Mods. We don't allow the average member to be displayed or tried in public. Sure, some members try and do that but hopefully we catch some (maybe not all) of that. So why would we make an exception for Mods? The problem with your suggest is that quickly members will make decisions only based on a single side of a story. What about the rights of the Mod to tell his/her side, especially when a member might have been warned previously. Of the fact, and this is the key, that it was simply a judgment call? Permitting a single side of any story is more harmful of anything we will ever do on FlyerTalk. Here's an example. Recently I denied an appeal to a member who posted this: "thanks for your very useful and constructive comments
You obviously new, normally I'd say welcome to FT but I will guess you'll not be here long. From your handle and pathetic needless comment on this thread it obvious you don't have any intention of providing useful information here. Can I recommend a tall bridge to walk off?"
This member was upset that they got suspended (they had been warned before about similar posts) and just did not see it as a personal attack. The Moderator made a decision it was in combination that they had had a prior warning. This type of post is unacceptable in my book as well.
Now, what would prevent the member to post up "I was recently suspended by a Mod who did not like me. I made a reply to a member and the Moderator called it a personal attack. Just another example of how much censorship there is here on FlyerTalk."
OK, there is no requirement of what the post that was made by the member. Members who don't even know this member or what forum it might have been posted in will now assume that it is "another" example of censorship. Fair or not, the trial has already begun and ended. I'd prefer that things like this are handled in the current manner in which they are. You know, some will say this was not a personal attack when they read the post. I believe it was and certainly not indicative of the way i hope our members behave. But nonetheless, this member believed they were OK to post this type of thing. Again, we don't try our everyday members in public for stupid posts (oh, some really try) and nor will we be that uncivilized to do the same with our Volunteers.
When you say that I view myself as the "protector of the moderators," I think you might have inadvertently left out the second part of that in that i have also said i was the protector of all our members. In fact, if you were to ask our Moderators, they will tell you that when i tell them about my views on our appeals process, i make it very clear (as in VERY CLEAR) that in an appeals process, i do not represent them. And in fact, i do not represent the member. I represent FlyerTalk and i cannot help them in any way make a case for the outcome of an appeal.
You also mention "don't write to you because they feel that they have little chance of success." Again, i think you may be lacking some information and that's OK, but if you were to go ask members why fly and fly CO to see the yanks, both of whom recently won appeals, they might tell you that the system does work. I did not feel the Mods made a mistake, I just felt that with "Delayed Instant Replay" I saw something else. A judgment call by the Mods in these two cases and a judgment call by me.
So, a start to your answer? Again, refreshingly wonderful that there is not a lot of other members between you and i having this conversation and as soon as i complete my reply, you will have a chance to follow up the question. Thank you.