A bridge between Mods and Non Mods: Ambassadors

[Alex.]

What is the criteria in selecting these "ambassadors"?

Is there an educational requirement;

Min Max Age;

Life experience;

Political leaning;

Sense of humor;

gender;

Height;

Weight;

Personal hygiene.

Maybe I can trade in some of my "Trophy Points" to buy an Ambassadorship

You win the prize and it is no wonder........you are a paid messageboard poster.

 

[phoenyx]

This strikes Me as the 'inmates wanting to run the asylum' kind of notion. Or employees who think they can do a better job at running the company, only to run it into the ground within five years.

Who cares how they reach their decisions?

-I- care about how they reach their decisions, and I'm certainly not the only one. Fortunately, there are at least some moderators here (I'm looking at you flacaltenn ) who are willing to explain these decisions, atleast in a private way. However, I thought that perhaps decisions that affect a fair amount of people on USMB -could- be discussed publicly, by someone who the moderation team would probably trust wouldn't mess things up- that is, a member of their own team, flacaltenn. Here's how I think it could work- people get upset about one or more mod decisions; flacal writes a weekly/biweekly newsletter addressing the general issue, without going into the specifics of any particular mod decision. Comments would be allowed to be made, but in a Clean Debate Zone type of forum, which I think could go a long way towards the thread dissolving into a mess.

 

[ChrisL]

This strikes Me as the 'inmates wanting to run the asylum' kind of notion. Or employees who think they can do a better job at running the company, only to run it into the ground within five years.

Who cares how they reach their decisions?

-I- care about how they reach their decisions, and I'm certainly not the only one. Fortunately, there are at least some moderators here (I'm looking at you flacaltenn ) who are willing to explain these decisions, atleast in a private way. However, I thought that perhaps decisions that affect a fair amount of people on USMB -could- be discussed publicly, by someone who the moderation team would probably trust wouldn't mess things up- that is, a member of their own team, flacaltenn. Here's how I think it could work- people get upset about one or more mod decisions; flacal writes a weekly/biweekly newsletter addressing the general issue, without going into the specifics of any particular mod decision. Comments would be allowed to be made, but in a Clean Debate Zone type of forum, which I think could go a long way towards the thread dissolving into a mess.

Not a terrible idea, but the moderator who agrees to do this will be agreeing to increase his responsibilities here. People would probably be PMing him and bothering him all the time. Lol. flacaltenn

 

[JoeMoma]

I like the way things are now. If you have a question, email the mod.

 

[flacaltenn]

Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?

I like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

I'm sure redean would happily be the go between for the two of you, and then you can leave the rest of us out of your Totalitarian Bureaucratic Wet-dream.

I don't know who redean is, but that made me laugh ;-). We're just thinking of a newsletter here, not the beginning of the Fourth Reich .

One of realities is -- Voting of any form would not get candidates who are INTERESTED in serving as volunteers. A small fraction of the membership is probably willing to dedicate the time it would take to review 100s of moderation actions a week and boil that down into something interesting and hopefully entertaining and helpful.

There's no auto tally of the number of posts deleted, warnings issued, thread closures and movements, PM chats, bans from thread, forum, or the board. So --- they'd have read thru pages of mod logs and notes to do it.

Best way would be (brain-storming only) soliciting volunteers for a job like that and then culling the list in some fashion. And because of the biases and polarization on the boards -- it would have to be a done deal rather than a vote of approval.

This whole thread exercise was condoned in the 1st place only because (IMO) there is nothing to hide and everything to gain by THINKING about ways to assure folks WE ARE DOING stuff to make the place more readable and enjoyable. And unfortunately, most of what we do has lousy visibility to the membership.

The staff at USMB are some of the BEST and most people-conscious folks I've EVER worked with in ANY endeavor.. And the Rules of this place are the simplest and most brilliant strategy to allow full discussion and free speech that I've ever seen in a public forum. So simple in fact -- we're forced to train the Robo-Mods that arrived from S. Korea last month to replace us..

Just thought you might need to know -- their names are Socko and Dingyah. And they are fascinated with the Ban Buttons....

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Hey.. I've given this some more thought.. How about a counter - proposal that could be simpler and less contentious Phoenix.

What about a single appointed reporter that gets facts, statistics, tips, and news from the moderation staff and writes up a bi-weekly "blog" in a forum. MIght even include news of new members, new features, USMB romance advice, ect... Just knowing how many reports and actions handled or number of warnings, member counselings, meltdowns, thread mergers and moves and such. Would be interesting and useful to the board members?

I like this idea. We probably don't need a go-between in the first place, since we do have two or three mods that don't need to be completely avoided at all costs, but if someone could give Admin/Mod reports and USMB news like you suggested, I think it would be a beautiful thing.

I haven't personally had any problems with any mod, but then, I've only really interacted with flacaltenn .

I'm sure redean would happily be the go between for the two of you, and then you can leave the rest of us out of your Totalitarian Bureaucratic Wet-dream.

I don't know who redean is, but that made me laugh ;-). We're just thinking of a newsletter here, not the beginning of the Fourth Reich .

One of realities is -- Voting of any form would not get candidates who are INTERESTED in serving as volunteers. A small fraction of the membership is probably willing to dedicate the time it would take to review 100s of moderation actions a week and boil that down into something interesting and hopefully entertaining and helpful.

There's no auto tally of the number of posts deleted, warnings issued, thread closures and movements, PM chats, bans from thread, forum, or the board. So --- they'd have read thru pages of mod logs and notes to do it.

Best way would be (brain-storming only) soliciting volunteers for a job like that and then culling the list in some fashion. And because of the biases and polarization on the boards -- it would have to be a done deal rather than a vote of approval.

This whole thread exercise was condoned in the 1st place only because (IMO) there is nothing to hide and everything to gain by THINKING about ways to assure folks WE ARE DOING stuff to make the place more readable and enjoyable. And unfortunately, most of what we do has lousy visibility to the membership.

The staff at USMB are some of the BEST and most people-conscious folks I've EVER worked with in ANY endeavor.. And the Rules of this place are the simplest and most brilliant strategy to allow full discussion and free speech that I've ever seen in a public forum. So simple in fact -- we're forced to train the Robo-Mods that arrived from S. Korea last month to replace us..

Just thought you might need to know -- their names are Socko and Dingyah. And they are fascinated with the Ban Buttons....

So, then, should we go with the newsletter idea, would you volunteer, and if so, who would you want to work with?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Mods are Gods on this Board.

You are asking to get hit by lightning.

 

[flacaltenn]

it's amazing what kinds of rumors and gossip are going around these days... this image comes from another site which was discussing yet another site where it was originally posted, or something along those lines, in reference to the shillary aka correct the record:

View attachment 90301

sure, it's mostly a non-issue, but this is the kind of creepy shit that mods usually learn the hard way. i know because i've been there. i was a mod on a website before, and i can tell you the shenanigans are like to drive one insane. i'll never do that again. hell, if this was my forum, none of you would even know who the mods were to protect them from certain abuses.

I thank you for that. And Thx for not mentioning the forums. Not sure that wasn't sarcasm, but a lot of that exists .I've experienced that before as have many other members and it stinks. . It's tyranny. plain and simple.

That is a GOLDEN example of why the USMB rules are so simple..... That's why this is my social network home base...

OTH --- As theDoc pointed out --- pure Democracy on a message board will take it down faster. So I personally (and I'm not speaking for USMB or Staff) don't see a problem with members discussing ideas and proposals for "inspecting" the inner workings of the Moderation Team. I think it's healthy to do that as long as specific gripes and specific personalities are left completely out of the discussion..

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This strikes Me as the 'inmates wanting to run the asylum' kind of notion. Or employees who think they can do a better job at running the company, only to run it into the ground within five years.

Who cares how they reach their decisions?

-I- care about how they reach their decisions, and I'm certainly not the only one. Fortunately, there are at least some moderators here (I'm looking at you flacaltenn ) who are willing to explain these decisions, atleast in a private way. However, I thought that perhaps decisions that affect a fair amount of people on USMB -could- be discussed publicly, by someone who the moderation team would probably trust wouldn't mess things up- that is, a member of their own team, flacaltenn. Here's how I think it could work- people get upset about one or more mod decisions; flacal writes a weekly/biweekly newsletter addressing the general issue, without going into the specifics of any particular mod decision. Comments would be allowed to be made, but in a Clean Debate Zone type of forum, which I think could go a long way towards the thread dissolving into a mess.

Not a terrible idea, but the moderator who agrees to do this will be agreeing to increase his responsibilities here. People would probably be PMing him and bothering him all the time. Lol. flacaltenn

Why wasn't this thread treated like any threads that would openly criticise moderators and moderation at this forum,. that's why wasn't the thread locked within minutes of the OP?

Phoenix joined in June and has a little more than 1,000 posts and he's allowed to get away with the OP, why?

Watch for this comment of mine to be deleted, which will only fuel the rumours that began last night.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

This strikes Me as the 'inmates wanting to run the asylum' kind of notion. Or employees who think they can do a better job at running the company, only to run it into the ground within five years.

Who cares how they reach their decisions?

-I- care about how they reach their decisions, and I'm certainly not the only one. Fortunately, there are at least some moderators here (I'm looking at you flacaltenn ) who are willing to explain these decisions, atleast in a private way. However, I thought that perhaps decisions that affect a fair amount of people on USMB -could- be discussed publicly, by someone who the moderation team would probably trust wouldn't mess things up- that is, a member of their own team, flacaltenn. Here's how I think it could work- people get upset about one or more mod decisions; flacal writes a weekly/biweekly newsletter addressing the general issue, without going into the specifics of any particular mod decision. Comments would be allowed to be made, but in a Clean Debate Zone type of forum, which I think could go a long way towards the thread dissolving into a mess.

Not a terrible idea, but the moderator who agrees to do this will be agreeing to increase his responsibilities here. People would probably be PMing him and bothering him all the time. Lol. flacaltenn

Why wasn't this thread treated like any threads that would openly criticise moderators and moderation at this forum,. that's why wasn't the thread locked within minutes of the OP?

Phoenix joined in June and has a little more than 1,000 posts and he's allowed to get away with the OP, why?

Watch for this comment of mine to be deleted, which will only fuel the rumours that began last night.

He asked a Mod in advance.

 

[Lucy Hamilton]

This strikes Me as the 'inmates wanting to run the asylum' kind of notion. Or employees who think they can do a better job at running the company, only to run it into the ground within five years.

Who cares how they reach their decisions?

-I- care about how they reach their decisions, and I'm certainly not the only one. Fortunately, there are at least some moderators here (I'm looking at you flacaltenn ) who are willing to explain these decisions, atleast in a private way. However, I thought that perhaps decisions that affect a fair amount of people on USMB -could- be discussed publicly, by someone who the moderation team would probably trust wouldn't mess things up- that is, a member of their own team, flacaltenn. Here's how I think it could work- people get upset about one or more mod decisions; flacal writes a weekly/biweekly newsletter addressing the general issue, without going into the specifics of any particular mod decision. Comments would be allowed to be made, but in a Clean Debate Zone type of forum, which I think could go a long way towards the thread dissolving into a mess.

Not a terrible idea, but the moderator who agrees to do this will be agreeing to increase his responsibilities here. People would probably be PMing him and bothering him all the time. Lol. flacaltenn

Why wasn't this thread treated like any threads that would openly criticise moderators and moderation at this forum,. that's why wasn't the thread locked within minutes of the OP?

Phoenix joined in June and has a little more than 1,000 posts and he's allowed to get away with the OP, why?

Watch for this comment of mine to be deleted, which will only fuel the rumours that began last night.

He asked a Mod in advance.

Which makes it more not normal.

PM a mod and ask can you post a thread openly criticising mods and the moderation of this forum, you've only been a member a few months and have a little more than 1,000 posts?

Phoenix is FCT?

I've never seen a thread like this before, but I have seen when moderating decisions have been opening criticised in an OP in A&F that have then had comments in bold red posted and the thread locked within minutes.

 

[flacaltenn]

Think this has been great. Made it almost 16 pages before the lock.
But -- sense it was souring and getting personal. So -- ideas are ALWAYS
welcomed. (I was NOT joking about Socko and Dingyah) .. They are
making me close this thread right now..

 

[Coyote]

After a long discussion with flacaltenn, one of the mods here, I've decided to go public with an idea. He said (and I quote): "We're always around with the fire extinguishers and the Hazmat suits if it doesn't go well."

So there's that .

My idea is create a new forum for atleast a few non mods who are interested in why mods make decisions if they get to pick which people are included. flacaltenn said they'd be tarred and feathered if the mods got to pick them outright, so I'm thinking maybe non mods would vote for who they would want in this forum, and the mods would have the power to veto anyone if a majority of mods didn't want that person in the group.

Perhaps these individuals could be called "Ambassadors", clearly not mods (no power to alter/delete posts/threads), but being able to see a little more then normal non mods in that they can question any decision a mod makes in a special forum that only they and mods can participate in.

As to their selection, first we could start with a number: there are apparently 7 mods, so perhaps there could be 7 Ambassadors, atleast for starters. Here's how I think it could work- prospective Ambassadors could put their hat in the ring by saying they'd be interested in being one. Let's say we give a week to people stepping up as prospective Ambassadors.

An Ambassador would need a certain amount of people to vouch for them to even be seriously considered. I'm not sure what that number should be, would like to see how many votes initial candidates get to be able to come with up with a good number. Once the serious contenders are chosen, we could start making polls for individual candidates. Note that we don't need to even have 7 candidates right away. If there are only 1 or 2 serious contenders for starters, that would be fine, if other serious contenders come later, they could get polls done then.

Next, a thread is made, with the names of all of the candidates. Voters would engage in ranked voting, of the instant run off variety with as many ranks as there are candidates (because the 'serious contender' can be set at whatever level, it could be made to make sure that there are no more than, say, 14 contenders).

Finally, once the top serious contenders have been chosen, mods would have the ability to veto any given choice if a majority of mods felt that a candidate would not be suitable to be an Ambassador.

So, what do you people think?

You have a lot of time on your hands....... don'tcha..........

Laugh . I thought it might be a good idea. Ah well, guess I'll just have to be an unofficial Ambassador, asking mods why they make decisions and then reporting it to someone who was curious. That's how all of this got started by the way .

Though the idea is intriguing, I think I'm also confused as to how it would help. I'm always willing to explain why I did something directly to the member so not sure why an additional layer is needed, unless I am not understanding the idea.