Hi all,

Firstly, thank you to all who gave their opinions in the fear of posting thread. Secondly, thank you to the head mods and mods for being so involved and caring so much about the process and outcome. The user's opinions were taken very seriously and based on the feedback we received, we've come up with some positive changes for the community and mods moving forward.

Please see below:

1. Deletion Notices
- Long term solution - Removing ambiguity by having the notices cite specific rules is top priority (this is not an easy fix and will include technical work on DM's end)
- Short term solution - Mods will make more of an effort to append personal comments where/when possible (will aim to do this 100% of the time)

2. Extended Bans - Bans longer than 30 days will be done away with (not including severe violations) and more emphasis will be placed on shorter ban lengths.

3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

4. DM and Mods - We will work more closely with the head mods and overall mod team continuing to tailor our current process and rules. DM will work on some technical fixes that will help the team work more efficiently as well.

5. Looking for 3 New Mods - The mod team is looking for passionate, educated and loyal users to come on board the crew. This will allow fresh faces on the team and will ensure that we constantly have a flow of new improvements and ideas within the team. The mods will start a thread in the coming weeks regarding this topic.

Demand Media wants to thank the mod team for all their efforts, past, present and future. We are lucky to have such a great crew. I also want to thank the head mods for all the self reflection during this period and really looking into improving the current system in the best possible way.

Thank you again to the users for all your feedback. Please feel free to comment and ask any questions that come to mind. The head mods and myself will be checking and communicating in this thread as long as possible.

Thank you,

Monique

Great first steps.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 5. Looking for 3 New Mods - The mod team is looking for passionate, educated and loyal users to come on board the crew. This will allow fresh faces on the team and will ensure that we constantly have a flow of new improvements and ideas within the team. The mods will start a thread in the coming weeks regarding this topic.

Who selects the mods? I see an inherent conflict if existing mods select the new ones. Not only that but if you have one type of people picking who else will join them, it creates an incestual "gene pool". I would suggest that the membership be allowed to vote.

Wow and wow. Surprised to see this very positive and forward feeback. Appreciate the updates.

  

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

Good idea!

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 2. Extended Bans - Bans longer than 30 days will be done away with (not including severe violations) and more emphasis will be placed on shorter ban lengths.

Also a good idea.


Some good steps here. Hopefully they will all come to full fruition.  


Liam  

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): Extended Bans - Bans longer than 30 days will be done away with (not including severe violations) and more emphasis will be placed on shorter ban lengths.

Does that mean perma-bans are gone? Would any users in an extended or a perma-ban situation have their sentences reduced?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

Does that mean, though, that if a mod and a user are going twelve rounds that another mod won't step in and ban the user? Does the "cool-off" time apply across the board so that the user in question has a chance to cool off w/o another mod getting involved?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): Looking for 3 New Mods

Viaggaire will be 1st in line saying "me! Me! ME!"   Having said that, and given his aggressive defense of site management, there may only be two positions left.

I could throw in a few names . . . MD11Engineer, Dougloid, LHMark and HuskyAviation.

I remember HAWK21M threw his name in the hat awhile back, and maybe he still wants it. I gave my opinion on that then, though, and someone/some people here couldn't swallow my take on it.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): we've come up with some positive changes for the community and mods moving forward.

It's always good to see some optimism about trying to effect productive changes, though we shall see.

Quoting Pope (Reply 1): I would suggest that the membership be allowed to vote.

Agreed. Using Pope's reasoning, I nominate anyone who could provide a restrained, intuitive counterweight to some of the other mods.

Quoting Pope (Reply 1): Not only that but if you have one type of people picking who else will join them, it creates an incestual "gene pool".

  

Quoting Pope (Reply 1): I would suggest that the membership be allowed to vote.

You mean like a popularity contest? It is only a matter of time before someone suggests a raffle.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): Viaggaire will be 1st in line saying "me! Me! ME!" Wink Having said that, and given his aggressive defense of site management, there may only be two positions left.

   Five hundred bucks says I'm not even in the race.

[Edited 2008-07-16 19:31:43]

Quoting Viaggiare (Reply 5): Quoting Pope (Reply 1): Not only that but if you have one type of people picking who else will join them, it creates an incestual "gene pool".

It's not really funny until you let us all in on the joke.  

Quoting Viaggiare (Reply 5): Quoting Pope (Reply 1): I would suggest that the membership be allowed to vote. You mean like a popularity contest? It is only a matter of time before someone suggests a raffle.

He might be mistaken in thinking that only rational, intelligent people would casts votes. Were that true, would you still say this . . .

Quoting Viaggiare (Reply 5): Five hundred bucks says I'm not even in the race.

 

1 - This is just common sense. Of course some mods(including a few recently departed) have done a very good job of the short term solution all along and the long term solution has been offered up and discussed many times before, probably even pre-DM in at least some form.

2. Sounds good but it might have more impact if some of the recent more Draconion punishments were commuted; Halls120, MiamiAir, etc. - . It's also interesting in light of the rumor I heard of a 6 month ban being handed down recently, very recently.

3. This is a great idea but the devil will be in the details.

4. Nothing really new here in principal. I'll throw in that I think some of the rules and process should be determined with less input from the mods. The current system is a lot like what would happen if the police were allowed to write the laws - not something most of us, including cops, would really want to live with.

5. If this is used as an opportunity to shake things up with a new attitude, could be really good. If it ends up being a boot licking contest then ..... btw, "loyal" to who? The user community or DM? There shouldn't be a conflict but lately there has been.

btw, while the "Fear of Posting" thread was good, I think the one DL021 started in late December had at least as much in the way of good suggestions. I would suggest that you review this again in the light of the events of the last few weeks - you will find some good ideas in there.

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/site_related/read.main/69542

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

What exactly does this mean? Are we talking about heated differences of opinions in a regular discussion (like Airbus is better than Boeing) or with a discrepancy of a forum rule. Neither makes sense. For the former: This is a discussion forum, and sometimes discussions should get heated.

For the latter: Breaking a forum rule is breaking a forum rule. You should delete posts for posts that break the rules, and leave all other posts alone (which is not what has happened in my personal experiences).

I have doubts in anything that seems positive that is posted by Demand Media staff (I mean no disrespect by that statement).

Im am glad to see this happen! Looks like A.net is coming away from the much hyped purge that people keep bringing up....

Mark

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule

I'm also having a little trouble understanding how this one will work. Logistically, what happens during this 24 hour period? Will there simply be no conversation whatsoever between the user and mod for a day? Or is the user's posting ability affected in some way during that period, whether it be just in the problematic thread or in the entire forum?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 2. Extended Bans - Bans longer than 30 days will be done away with (not including severe violations) and more emphasis will be placed on shorter ban lengths

Ideally bans would never be needed,if debate involves mature talk.but good choice there.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 4. DM and Mods - We will work more closely with the head mods and overall mod team continuing to tailor our current process and rules. DM will work on some technical fixes that will help the team work more efficiently as well.

Nice to hear about the Mod team & Mgmt wanting to strive for perfection.Improvements should always be attempted as long as it serves the site & encourages more visitors.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 5. Looking for 3 New Mods - The mod team is looking for passionate, educated and loyal users to come on board the crew. This will allow fresh faces on the team and will ensure that we constantly have a flow of new improvements and ideas within the team. The mods will start a thread in the coming weeks regarding this topic.

I too would be keen on applying for the same,if I would be considered fit to be able to do justice to the post.anything that will help aviation.

regds
MEL

Monique,

Your response is EXTREMELY POSITIVE AND CONSTRUCTIVE.

I believe that these new measures will greatly improve the situation.

Thank you - and all the management and crew concerned - for taking account of our views in this very positive manner.

Quoting Pope (Reply 1): Who selects the mods? I see an inherent conflict if existing mods select the new ones. Not only that but if you have one type of people picking who else will join them, it creates an incestual "gene pool". I would suggest that the membership be allowed to vote.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): Agreed. Using Pope's reasoning, I nominate anyone who could provide a restrained, intuitive counterweight to some of the other mods.

The process we've used in the past to appoint new moderators will not change. There will not be a member vote on this, just as there hasn't been in the past. Though the opinions of members are valued, crew members are never appointed through an election.

Interested members will be asked to express their own interest by contacting the Head Moderators, when the HM's decide they are ready to begin that process. (It will be announced in the site-related forum).

This thread (or any others) won't be used to discuss candidates, and it won't be necessary for members to nominate each other publicly. What is important is that a person who wishes to be a moderator express his/her own interest and follow the designated process when it's announced. If you feel strongly about a specific member becoming a moderator, please encourage that person to participate enthusiastically in the process when it begins.

The moderators look forward to working with new crew members in the future.

Wow. This seems like a GIANT step forward Monique assuming everything pans out as mentioned or better.

Thank you very much for listening to us, DM.

Monique,

THANK YOU for following up on the situation with this new thread! When the other thread was locked, I feared it would all be dropped for good...or until another user decided to post another thread to keep the battle going. I was pleasantly surprised to find this thread tonight. A very positive step forward! Will be interesting to see how it all plays out.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban. Does that mean, though, that if a mod and a user are going twelve rounds that another mod won't step in and ban the user? Does the "cool-off" time apply across the board so that the user in question has a chance to cool off w/o another mod getting involved?

What we'd like to do is introduce something similar to a "Time Out". We realise a user may have had a bad day, be under the influence or just an Industry Professional who is tired of factually wrong, even if best of intentioned, opinions from a less experienced user, frustrates them.

This causes users to "fuse out" and get banned, so rather than ban them. We'd like opinions on a 12-24 hour no post period so the user can regain their throughts and post in a constructive manner when the Cool Down period expires.

With such a short non posting period members should react more favourably than if they've received a longer suspension.

The user and Mod can both still communicate to solve the issue and hopefully avoid a longer ban. At no time will a user not be able to communicate with the Moderators.

Quoting Monorail (Reply 10): Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule I'm also having a little trouble understanding how this one will work. Logistically, what happens during this 24 hour period? Will there simply be no conversation whatsoever between the user and mod for a day? Or is the user's posting ability affected in some way during that period, whether it be just in the problematic thread or in the entire forum?

Refer above. A users posting rights would be suspended for 12 to 24 hours allowing time for some heated debates that turn into personal exchanges to cease for awhile.

It would be user specific, not Thread specific.

Again, A Mod or Head Mod will always be available for the users, we're here to work with the membership. At no point would there be no dialougue between a user and a moderator for 24 hours unless timezones intervene, even then, other Mods would cover.

So does this mean that those already banished will be allowed to return? (if they even want to at this point). Like it or not, their departure from A.net has diminished this site immeasurably. Just look at non-av. It's a boring collection of 6-day old threads.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): Long term solution - Removing ambiguity by having the notices cite specific rules is top priority (this is not an easy fix and will include technical work on DM's end)

  

Very very good. We have to get specific. Please also insert rules regarding implied flambait tones so that users and moderators can't hide under a veil of syntaxic innocence.

Quoting Singapore_Air (Reply 19): Please also insert rules regarding implied flambait tones so that users and moderators can't hide under a veil of syntaxic innocence.

I hope that, by this, that you do not seek to excise the site of playful sarcasm, which would probably exclude most Australians.  . Also I have sadly noted that it is necessary to be provocative in order to stimulate discussion and get answers.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 2. Extended Bans - Bans longer than 30 days will be done away with (not including severe violations) and more emphasis will be placed on shorter ban lengths.

Good although that has never hit me! The only time this is worthless if 30 plus 30 day bans are given!

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

This is also a good idea. But who will decide? Is there an option for other users like the "delete thread" button to bring it to immediate attention of the moderators?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 5. Looking for 3 New Mods - The mod team is looking for passionate, educated and loyal users to come on board the crew. This will allow fresh faces on the team and will ensure that we constantly have a flow of new improvements and ideas within the team. The mods will start a thread in the coming weeks regarding this topic.

Fresh blood is always good!  

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 16): just an Industry Professional who is tired of factually wrong, even if best of intentioned, opinions from a less experienced user, frustrates them. This causes users to "fuse out" and get banned, so rather than ban them. We'd like opinions on a 12-24 hour no post period so the user can regain their throughts and post in a constructive manner when the Cool Down period expires.

My suggestion is that if someone freaks out because of utter nonsense provided from a non or proffesional that the one causing it should get a "yellow card" as well!

I believe that those ideas are good and will help cool some users down!


P.S.: How about a table where bans are displayed for various offenses against the rules?  

Finally a step forward! Let's wait and see how all these changes are applied, but it's defintely something positive. The only concern I can think of right now is of getting the wrongly banned back. They probably won't even want to, but give them the chance.

regards  

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 21): This is also a good idea. But who will decide? Is there an option for other users like the "delete thread" button to bring it to immediate attention of the moderators?

Perhaps it could be incorporated into the Suggest Deletion Menu. Members could then use that to bring attention to the crew that a thread needs to be given due process.

As for who would decide it would be the moderators and the membership via the Suggest Deletion function. Usually a series of deletions is a couple of members both violating rules.

Quoting OHLHD (Reply 21): My suggestion is that if someone freaks out because of utter nonsense provided from a non or proffesional that the one causing it should get a "yellow card" as well!

That may well be the case. Each situation is different and there will be times that such professionals would most likely get the "timeout". .

Thanks for the suggestion of a yellow card.

Quoting EZEIZA (Reply 22):

That I know will never happen!

I think my biggest concern right now is what will happen next time a change in the site is implemented. Will our opinions be moderated to the same degree as they were post-homepage modification? In other words, will all negative feedback be forbidden and wiped out?

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 16): What we'd like to do is introduce something similar to a "Time Out". We realise a user may have had a bad day, be under the influence or just an Industry Professional who is tired of factually wrong, even if best of intentioned, opinions from a less experienced user, frustrates them.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 16): This causes users to "fuse out" and get banned, so rather than ban them. We'd like opinions on a 12-24 hour no post period so the user can regain their throughts and post in a constructive manner when the Cool Down period expires.

The way she states it, both individuals involved need to step away from the situation. The way you state it the user is the one who is sent to his room to think about what they did wrong and then come out and apologize.

Do moderators also have bad days? Shouldn't this also apply to them as Monique states? If a user is locked for 12-24 hours, shouldn't the moderator be locked out for 12-24 hours?

I would like to say that I believe I was the victim of a moderator "fusing out" and incrementally increasing my ban as I was attempting to have a dialog as the rules were written.

What A.net and DM fail to understand is that many of those purged are truly experts in their respective fields of aviation. The loss of their expertise, no doubt fueled by being constantly challenged by 13 year old armchair CEO's leaves us with nothing but a bunch of teenage know-it-alls, without any true subject matter expertise. That brings diminished value to this site. If I wanted to chat with a bunch of opinionated teenagers, I could have joined Facebook for free.

A.net needs to suck it up and extend an invitation back. Otherwise, we're left with fewer true experts and more know-it-alls.

I agree! If the way the forums are being run has been debated among managment and crew, it's because everyone realizes that there was a problem, correct? So why not be the greater person here and admit a mistake has been made and let the banned users return? These people are not my friends, I have never met them personally nor I have any particular relatiosnhip with them even on a.net, but it as been posted many times that they are respected members that were banned for no reason, or at least, not a reason big enough for such a severe punishment.
Think about it, in a trial, it would be like new evidence makes them innocent, but they would still stay in jail because ... why exactly?


regards  

Quoting Moderators (Reply 13): The process we've used in the past to appoint new moderators will not change. There will not be a member vote on this, just as there hasn't been in the past. Though the opinions of members are valued, crew members are never appointed through an election. Interested members will be asked to express their own interest by contacting the Head Moderators, when the HM's decide they are ready to begin that process. (It will be announced in the site-related forum). This thread (or any others) won't be used to discuss candidates, and it won't be necessary for members to nominate each other publicly. What is important is that a person who wishes to be a moderator express his/her own interest and follow the designated process when it's announced. If you feel strongly about a specific member becoming a moderator, please encourage that person to participate enthusiastically in the process when it begins. The moderators look forward to working with new crew members in the future.

So what if (for the sake of argument) the problem is the head moderator? How is change ever going to happen if the only people who get into leadership positions are those who gain the favor of the mods (through whatever course of behavior they find effective)? IMO it just re-enforces the "yes" man/woman impression that many customers have of the mods. Why is there such a fear of allowing the customers to have a say in how they are moderated? It seems to me that only people who fear losing their strangle hold on power are opposed to implementing greater accountability. Clearly some standards are necessary but when people's posts are being deleted because of content then a problem exists. The determination of what content (opinion) is deemed acceptable is very subjective and therefore the standard of the community should have some role. Perhaps a middle ground would be a retention vote. After a period (a year or two) a mod would have to stand for re-election. If a majority of the voting customers didn't believe that they deserve a second term, then the mod would lose their position. DM could then appoint a new mod to take their place. That would leave the ultimate choice of who to appoint to the mods and still create a true sense of accountability for the membership. Combine that with a head mod position that is select by DM or by a vote of the other mods and I think you've got a really workable progressive system that is accountable BOTH to the ownership AND to the customers.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 26): A.net needs to suck it up and extend an invitation back.

I believe it would go a long way to restoring the membership’s trust in DM & the mods if, at the very least, those members who have received permanent bans or had their accounts deleted in the recent purge could have their transgressions readdressed using these new guidelines.

It would certainly be a gesture of good faith by DM & the mods to demonstrate that they are genuine about making positive changes. Otherwise, it could be assumed by some that this is all just lip service to silence the current unrest.

Hi Pope,

One thing too... I want to point out one thing I hope you do not mind.

You made a comment along the lines of "I bet you got your ass kicked in school" in rebuttal to something another user said.

This is the borderline sarcasm that we are discussing in particular. For some people, this could be taken as insulting and vulgar. Other people would be humored by it. The mods and DM are going to often time error on the side of professionalism and not insulting users... therefor things like this will often times be removed.

I don't mean to make an example out of you, I simple wanted to explain why this was deleted in detail.

Thanks,

Monique

Quoting Pope (Reply 28): So what if (for the sake of argument) the problem is the head moderator? How is change ever going to happen if the only people who get into leadership positions are those who gain the favor of the mods (through whatever course of behavior they find effective)? IMO it just re-enforces the "yes" man/woman impression that many customers have of the mods.

We have four Head Moderators, so if one of them is involved with the situation, there are three others to intercede. In addition, there have been occasions when the Head Moderators ask for opinions from the entire group.

The Moderators are not selected based on "favor". Quite a few things are looked at when someone applies for the position.

Quoting Pope (Reply 28): Why is there such a fear of allowing the customers to have a say in how they are moderated? It seems to me that only people who fear losing their strangle hold on power are opposed to implementing greater accountability. Clearly some standards are necessary but when people's posts are being deleted because of content then a problem exists. The determination of what content (opinion) is deemed acceptable is very subjective and therefore the standard of the community should have some role. Perhaps a middle ground would be a retention vote. After a period (a year or two) a mod would have to stand for re-election. If a majority of the voting customers didn't believe that they deserve a second term, then the mod would lose their position. DM could then appoint a new mod to take their place. That would leave the ultimate choice of who to appoint to the mods and still create a true sense of accountability for the membership. Combine that with a head mod position that is select by DM or by a vote of the other mods and I think you've got a really workable progressive system that is accountable BOTH to the ownership AND to the customers.

How many sites do you know of where the users elect and vote on the Moderators? If there are any, I'd sure like to see them. Every single forum I am a member of that has a group of Moderators (as opposed to everything being moderated by the person whose site is it) does not let its' membership choose the Moderators nor put the Moderators up for approval by the membership. You want to say that the Moderators favor their own? If we were to allow the membership to vote for the Moderators, you're more than likely to get folks voted in that have absolutely no business being in a crew position. Here's a hypothetical situation, say QWERTY123 is one of the "candidates" for a Moderator position. QWERTY123 is well-liked among the group, but has a history of being banned for months at a time and basically thumbs their nose at the Moderators. Would you want someone who has a history of violating the Forum Rules to be the one enforcing the Forum Rules? It would be like in
"A Clockwork Orange" when Alex's Drooges became cops.

I don't know the process in which the Head Moderators are selected, but I would guess that it's done in coordination between the Head Moderators and the ownership.

Quoting StrandedInBGM (Reply 29): Do moderators also have bad days? Shouldn't this also apply to them as Monique states? If a user is locked for 12-24 hours, shouldn't the moderator be locked out for 12-24 hours?

There have been times when some of the other Moderators have asked one who had been involved in a pretty tense situation with a user to take some time off. If the other Moderators feel as though one of their own needs to take a step back for awhile, they will not hesitate to do so.

Quoting PA110 (Reply 18): So does this mean that those already banished will be allowed to return? (if they even want to at this point). Like it or not, their departure from A.net has diminished this site immeasurably. Just look at non-av. It's a boring collection of 6-day old threads.

As it was explained in the "Fearful Of Posting" Thread, no.

https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...site_related/read.main/76603/1/#49

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 30): One thing too... I want to point out one thing I hope you do not mind. You made a comment along the lines of "I bet you got your ass kicked in school" in rebuttal to something another user said.

Monique I have absolutely no problem with your explanation. However, I'll note that in times past when I've asked for explanations about why other posts have been deleted the answer from the mods is, we never discuss reasons for deletion publicly. It's only a person matter between the poster and the mod. But as I said, I have absolutely no problem with you writing about this publicly.

I will note that it's peculiar that the exception to the rule occured on a post where I was critical of the mods (though as you can see from the reposted in Reply 13 respectful). It furthers the notion that critical posts are deleted on technicalities and then other rules are violated to justify the original deletion. Again, only transparency will remedy such a situtation and this is why I welcome this dicussion.

I do feel that it is necessary to repost excerpts from an exchange with SRBMod which was deleted for "housekeeping purposes because a reference post was deleted" in which he wrote several substantive statements which I believe are important. I'm reposting them without the reference to the deleted post so that the membership can see what was said. I have no way of reposting his original reply in its entirety because he must have gotten a deletion notice based on reference post being deleted but I would welcome his reposting of it because it raises several issues.

Quote: The Moderators are not selected based on "favor". Quite a few things are looked at when someone applies for the position.

Please detail them. It seems that DM and the Mods are obsessed with keeping this process secret. Why is that? The selection of moderators is starting to sound more and more like the Zimbabwe process for selecting a President than anything else.

Quote: How many sites do you know of where the users elect and vote on the Moderators? Every single forum I am a member of that has a group of Moderators (as opposed to everything being moderated by the person whose site is it) does not let its' membership choose the Moderators nor put the Moderators up for approval by the membership.

A valid enough retort on your part, but let's examine the validity of your conclusion based on a factual analysis of the comparable data. How many of these sites do you pay to join? Please list them so we can make an apples to apples comparison. We a!re not just members of this site, we are its customers. It seems that too often the Mods seem to forget that. While I think DM has made mistakes (some of them serious), I think that they realize that the members are customers. I don't think that's the same mentality with at least some of the mod. I can only speak for myself but some of the correspondence I've received from mods is frankly unacceptable in a commercial setting. I wonder what others have to say about their experiences.

Quote: Here's a hypothetical situation, say QWERTY123 is one of the "candidates" for a Moderator position. QWERTY123 is well-liked among the group, but has a history of being banned for months at a time and basically thumbs their nose at the Moderators.

Your hypothetical presupposes the correctness of the moderator's decisions. If mods are selected by mods (or at least the existing mods have a substantial influence over their selection) then that assumption isn't necessarily correct. Continuing in the hypothetical let's say User1 is highly critical of Mods1 through 4. What prevents them from getting together and saying, let's be rid of this insolent trouble maker and invoking a rule that allows us to delete their posts and ban them for any reason? Again, I'm sure you'll argue that this simply doesn't happen but yet the discussions are completely opaque to the membership therefore only trust in the mod's word is the justification. It seems to me that the lack of confide!nce in some of the mods and the process is at the very center of many of the user problems. Are you saying that every decision by every mod to ban every user has been correct? Is there not a single occurence in the history of A.net where any user received repeated bans and the fault laid not with the user but with the mod? It seems that a doctrine of Mod infallability is developing here and I would venture a guess that the membership finds that notion laughable.

Thank you to everyone for being supportive and actually being on board for most of these ideas. Sometimes whatever DM or the mods post we get slammed for, but this thread and the last weeks worth of conversations have been extremely productive. I feel like their has been a lot of teamwork between community, mods and DM and I'm really happy to see this coming together.

Quoting AF340 (Reply 3): Some good steps here. Hopefully they will all come to full fruition. Smile

They will, we have to start somewhere and this is it.  

Quoting Allrite (Reply 19): I hope that, by this, that you do not seek to excise the site of playful sarcasm, which would probably exclude most Australians. Smile. Also I have sadly noted that it is necessary to be provocative in order to stimulate discussion and get answers.

I'm completely okay with some playful sarcasm but of course, it's always a fine line. Just like when you drive 75 mph on the freeway and the speed limit is 65 mph... most everyone does it and you rarely get a ticket but you are running the risk. It's kind of the same thing, sarcasm is okay but if for any reason a comment gets deleted, just deal with it or discuss it with the mods... no one is going to agree on things 100% and like I said, sarcasm is a fine line since people's humor differ extremely. Hope that is understandable and realistic.

Quoting Silver1SWA (Reply 24): I think my biggest concern right now is what will happen next time a change in the site is implemented. Will our opinions be moderated to the same degree as they were post-homepage modification? In other words, will all negative feedback be forbidden and wiped out?

That's a good question and I didn't really address this fully. No, we do not want to oppress any opinions. I want people to have the full right to voice positive and negative feedback or suggestions on topics.

I tried my best to explain what type of feedback was appropriate and basically it's anything that is said professionally. Please see Shyflyers post 18 in Fearful of Posting thread (basics pasted below).

"I think you want to say that you want positive and negative feedback, but only worded professionally (or politely)."

Quoting StrandedInBGM (Reply 25): Do moderators also have bad days? Shouldn't this also apply to them as Monique states? If a user is locked for 12-24 hours, shouldn't the moderator be locked out for 12-24 hours?

In my opinion, a moderator should also be restricted from communicating with this user for 12-24 hours but they should not be unable to screen. Just because a mod gets heated about a conversation with a user, doesn't mean that they can't continue to do their work. That's my opinion.

Srbmod also is correct, many times mods will remove themselves from a situation without an actual policy in place.

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 31): There have been times when some of the other Moderators have asked one who had been involved in a pretty tense situation with a user to take some time off. If the other Moderators feel as though one of their own needs to take a step back for awhile, they will not hesitate to do so.

Quoting Pope (Reply 32): Monique I have absolutely no problem with your explanation. However, I'll note that in times past when I've asked for explanations about why other posts have been deleted the answer from the mods is, we never discuss reasons for deletion publicly. It's only a person matter between the poster and the mod. But as I said, I have absolutely no problem with you writing about this publicly.

Thank you for letting me use this. Pointing this out in public is not the usual and will not become the usual. The rule of not discussing deletions publicly is still in place. This is a unique situation and I had a feeling you would be okay with it and I thought my explanation would help clarify some things.

Again, your deletion was not because of mod criticism. It was because of your comment about the "ass kicking in school" thing towards another member, which could be considered insulting and vulgar. But again, not a huge deal just something that was on the cusp and will potentially get deleted (which in this case it did). Thanks again for letting me point this out.

Quoting Pope (Reply 32): Please detail them. It seems that DM and the Mods are obsessed with keeping this process secret. Why is that? The selection of moderators is starting to sound more and more like the Zimbabwe process for selecting a President than anything else.

As stated in my original post, more details about the 3 mods positions and how to apply will be coming soon. In this post, more will be explained regarding what we are looking for and the process of selection. We have no means to hide it as it's not a shady process.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 33): Quoting StrandedInBGM (Reply 25): Do moderators also have bad days? Shouldn't this also apply to them as Monique states? If a user is locked for 12-24 hours, shouldn't the moderator be locked out for 12-24 hours? In my opinion, a moderator should also be restricted from communicating with this user for 12-24 hours but they should not be unable to screen. Just because a mod gets heated about a conversation with a user, doesn't mean that they can't continue to do their work. That's my opinion. Srbmod also is correct, many times mods will remove themselves from a situation without an actual policy in place. Quoting Srbmod (Reply 31): There have been times when some of the other Moderators have asked one who had been involved in a pretty tense situation with a user to take some time off. If the other Moderators feel as though one of their own needs to take a step back for awhile, they will not hesitate to do so.

Let me understand this correctly... Monique agrees that a mod should have a 12-24 hour cooling off period. From what I can tell, the mod's cooling off period restricts him from interaction with the user in in question. What is to stop the mod from continuing to have a bad day and take the frustrations built up out on another user?

It isn't all that uncommon for someone that is having a bad day to carry that with him all day and take it out on multiple individuals. Mods are humans too (some might disagree). Humans have emotions. People sometimes loose control of their emotions.

I think should a cooling off period be necessary the final decision should be left to management, not the head moderators. That way hopefully, management can review the situation and make a "fair and impartial" decision.

Scenario: If a thread starts to go Off Topic quickly because two members are entering into an increasingly heated exchange which is getting close to breaking the rules, has suggest deletions from other, non involved members, and in some cases the users themsleves. It warrants attention.

Being given an effective 12-24 hour suspension, that may or may not contain a warning too, will assist in bringing the thread back on topic.

Quoting Strandedinbgm (Reply 35): From what I can tell, the mod's cooling off period restricts him from interaction with the user in in question.

The user should retain the right to contact the Mod crew. This is not so much about a timeout for the Moderator. But I'll address the matter.

Quoting Strandedinbgm (Reply 35): What is to stop the mod from continuing to have a bad day and take the frustrations built up out on another user?

Nothing, except he rest of the Mod crew and if it appears a Mod is out of line our own measures ensure that the relevent Mod is notified immediately. I know, I've experienced it first hand well and proper by having to delete another Mods posts. Also as Srbmod noted;

Quoting Flyheligirl (Reply 33): many times mods will remove themselves from a situation without an actual policy in place. Quoting Srbmod (Reply 31): There have been times when some of the other Moderators have asked one who had been involved in a pretty tense situation with a user to take some time off. If the other Moderators feel as though one of their own needs to take a step back for awhile, they will not hesitate to do so.

That happens a lot more than you may realise. A Mod will ask for cover and another will step up. Sometimes timezones allow for another Mod to help the member before the relevent Mod.

Quoting Strandedinbgm (Reply 35): I think should a cooling off period be necessary the final decision should be left to management, not the head moderators. That way hopefully, management can review the situation and make a "fair and impartial" decision.

A cooling off period, timeout or yellow card is in effect a 12-24 hour ban. On average it'll be over quite quickly. It's not for management to micro manage the forums to that degree. Their time would be far better spent working with all crew groups to ensure the site is a better place for the membership.

[Edit: Spelling]

[Edited 2008-07-17 17:41:51]

Quoting Srbmod (Reply 31): Quoting PA110 (Reply 18): So does this mean that those already banished will be allowed to return? (if they even want to at this point). Like it or not, their departure from A.net has diminished this site immeasurably. Just look at non-av. It's a boring collection of 6-day old threads. As it was explained in the "Fearful Of Posting" Thread, no. https://www.airliners.net/aviation-fo...1/#49

Sad. This greatly reduces the value of all the good and welcomed initiatives in this thread

Quoting Pope (Reply 32): I do feel that it is necessary to repost excerpts from an exchange with SRBMod which was deleted for "housekeeping purposes because a reference post was deleted" in which he wrote several substantive statements which I believe are important.

I think the blanket "referenced post deleted" rule is somewhat problematic. Say Pope posts the following.

Quote: I bet you got your ass kicked in school. And you're totally wrong. It was dumb for AA to cut STL-JFK. They own STL, and they SHOULD be able to easily fill a flight with connections to Europe

I reply

Quote: Quoting Pope (Reply 500): It was dumb for AA to cut STL-JFK. They own STL, and they SHOULD be able to easily fill a flight with connections to Europe AA doesn't need STL-JFK. STL has plenty of service to ORD (and DFW, and MIA and BOS if you really want to list them all

Under the rules as they stand now, my post gets deleted when a mod comes along and deletes Pope's post. But why? What I've quoted contributed positively to the conversation. I contributed positively to the conversation. I realize that sometimes the rule breaking and the substantive post are inexorably intertwined. Sometimes, though, they aren't.

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 39): But why?

Becasue without having to go in and manually edit your post it would still show up in subsequent replies thus causing post issues and other users to possibly quote that post and create a flame war.

That said. Where do we apply to be mods? (Not that id have a shot   )

Quoting Cubsrule (Reply 39): Under the rules as they stand now, my post gets deleted when a mod comes along and deletes Pope's post. But why? What I've quoted contributed positively to the conversation. I contributed positively to the conversation. I realize that sometimes the rule breaking and the substantive post are inexorably intertwined. Sometimes, though, they aren't.

That's a very fair question / observation.

Referenced post deletions are very time consuming. Sometimes the deletion of one post can trigger a 'cascade' of RPD's that can take hours to process on our end.

In the hypothetical example you've mentioned above, you did not quote the offensive text that may have caused another member's post to be removed. Instead, you quoted only the on-topic sentences and then replied to them in an on-topic manner.

But the fact remains that his original post is now gone - so your reference to it appears out of context.

If 10 users quote the example you used, and only 7 of them happened to quote the offensive phrase, it becomes far too difficult (given our current system) to pick and choose which references are allowed to stay and which ones are deleted.

So for now, if a post is pulled, all references to it should (in theory) be pulled too. We do miss some as it can be like a needle in a haystack at times.

One suggestion I can make is this: don't quote something that is marginal or likely to be removed. Instead, find a way to participate in the ongoing discussion without a direct reference to a post that probably violates a forum rule.

[Edited 2008-07-17 19:45:31]

Quoting Diamond (Reply 41): One suggestion I can make is this: don't quote something that is marginal or likely to be removed. Instead, find a way to participate in the ongoing discussion without a direct reference to a post that probably violates a forum rule.

That's a fair suggestion, and in the example above, it's easy. But when you're 6 or 7 posts down from the offensive post or the offensive post is marginal (and sometimes they are), it's more difficult.

I realize there may not be a better solution, but it seems absurd to delete me in my post above but not to delete me if my post is

Quote: Pope, you're wrong. AA doesn't need STL-JFK. STL has plenty of service to ORD (and DFW, and MIA and BOS if you really want to list them all).

Users might be better off NEVER using the quote button.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 37): Scenario: If a thread starts to go Off Topic quickly because two members are entering into an increasingly heated exchange which is getting close to breaking the rules, has suggest deletions from other, non involved members, and in some cases the users themsleves. It warrants attention. Being given an effective 12-24 hour suspension, that may or may not contain a warning too, will assist in bringing the thread back on topic.

Agreed if users are going at it with each other, they should both get shut down.

What I am stating is that if a moderator is "fused out" and the situation demands a cooling off period. Both the user and the mod involved should go to the cooler.

If a cop drives drunk, should he get a pass?

Quoting StrandedInBGM (Reply 42): What I am stating is that if a moderator is "fused out" and the situation demands a cooling off period. Both the user and the mod involved should go to the cooler. If a cop drives drunk, should he get a pass?

I think that goes directly to the issue of who police's the police? Notice that I haven't yet received a response to my question

Quote: Are you saying that every decision by every mod to ban every user has been correct? Is there not a single occurrence in the history of A.net where any user received repeated bans and the fault laid not with the user but with the mod?

The lack of a substantive reply is indicative of a pattern of behavior when mods, faced with a difficult question, simply stop responding. They literally pick up their ball and go home. I find it hard to see how reconciliation between the customers and DM will ever occur until there is some mechanism for accountability. Right now it seems to operate under the notion that a mod can do no wrong.

Heck, by casual observation the message seems clear. If they speak out of turn they're punished for their advocating for the customer and not toeing the party line.

I for one look forward to seeing just how much transparency will be created in the mod selection and discipline process.

Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): Viaggaire will be 1st in line saying "me! Me! ME!" Having said that, and given his aggressive defense of site management, there may only be two positions left.

hahahaha so funny. (sad but true)

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.

hmmm......sounds like something a wise man(teenager) said in the last thread. Now all we need is the membership bill of rights  

Quoting Pope (Reply 43): I think that goes directly to the issue of who police's the police?

The moderators as a group moderate each other. Only in the last few days there was a thread deleted by one mod and another mod disagreed with the deletion. After discussion the thread was re-instated and an apology sent to the poster.

Quoting Pope (Reply 43): Are you saying that every decision by every mod to ban every user has been correct? Is there not a single occurrence in the history of A.net where any user received repeated bans and the fault laid not with the user but with the mod?

When a member is being considered for a ban, on many occasions the mod who is proposing the the ban will put it up for discussion amongst the mod group as to whether a ban is necessary and the duration of the ban.

On other occasions a mod may instigate a ban without reference to the other mods. If another mod disgrees with the ban he will voice his opinion and the matter will be discussed. On these occasions bans have been lenghtened or shortened and sometimes occasionally lifted!

So in summary a moderator is unable to go solo, all his actions are monitored by the rest of the group and if necessary he will be reigned in. If a mod has banned someone and the majority of the mods disgree with it the ban or duration it will be lifted or the duration amended to what is considered reasonable by the majority.

A member receives bans due to the fault of a mod?

Once - possibly, but it should be picked up by the other mods and corrected.

On multiple occasions - very very unlikely. A repeated ban history is built up by multiple rule transgressions . The first ban is normally 3 days, then if the members continues to break the rules each succeeding ban will be longer.

A member is more than welcome to question the validity of a ban via e-mail to [email protected] If the mail is composed in a polite mature manner the situation will reviewed and discussed amongst the mod group, no single mod ever makes a unilateral decision in these circumstances.

However, if the mail is laced with expletives etc in all likelyhood the mail will not be assigned a very high priority or will be ignored. This is why we advise that if you are annoyed by a notification mail of a deletion or ban we suggest you walk away for an hour and calm down before responding. You will then be able to compose a well written mail and not leave any facts out that you may forget in the heat of the moment when you respond immediately.

I hope the above answeres your concerns.

We want to work with you guys & gals to produce a happy close community, we are more than willing to listen to your concerns and act upon them if we (DM & Crew) can see the advantages.

Quoting Pope (Reply 43): The lack of a substantive reply is indicative of a pattern of behavior when mods, faced with a difficult question, simply stop responding. They literally pick up their ball and go home.

I would have appreciated seeing this addressed. There have been several instances where I have asked the mods a question, politely, only to have it ignored - even after a few gentle reminders. I know that I'm not the only one who has had to deal with this apparent, "Your question is awkard, if we iignore it maybe it will go away" type of mentality. Of course due to the "Secrecy Fetish" rule I can't be more specific.

Quoting StrandedInBGM (Reply 42): If a cop drives drunk, should he get a pass?

No. Nor do Moderators get a pass. Refer to VC-10's reply;

Quoting VC-10 (Reply 46): So in summary a moderator is unable to go solo, all his actions are monitored by the rest of the group and if necessary he will be reigned in.

That can happen quite quickly on occassion as timezones sometimes work against us. There have been instances where a mod will delete another mods post due to that.

Do mods get banned, yes, In one instance the mod deliberately stepped aside and did not moderate for a decent time even though some were not for him to not do so.

Remember, the timeout should and is an idea for dealing with member to member derailing thread situations. Not Moderator - Member.

Keep asking questions we're here and there are many other topics to discuss.

Quoting DeltaL1011man (Reply 44): Quoting Allstarflyer (Reply 4): Viaggaire will be 1st in line saying "me! Me! ME!" Having said that, and given his aggressive defense of site management, there may only be two positions left. hahahaha so funny. (sad but true)

Sorry to disappoint my small legion of vociferous and pompous detractors, but it has been made abundantly clear already that I am not interested in a staff position.

My sole motivation for stepping up to the plate in defense of Airliners.net is the firm belief that a recalcitrant minority must not be allowed to exert disproportionate influence on the strategic direction of this online community.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 47): Do mods get banned, yes, In one instance the mod deliberately stepped aside and did not moderate for a decent time even though some were not for him to not do so.

This is not a ban. Sounds more like when a cop gets caught doing somehting bad and gets off with an ass chewing by the Sgt. where a normal person would be contacting a lawyer. Double standards are not acceptable and will always cause resentment. Recently staff/mod members have committed acts that would absolutely have resulted in bans, probably long ones, for normal members with no apparent consequences. People know about this and talk about, just not here because it will get you canned. Unfortunately, this is the only proper place to discuss these problems as well.

Quoting PanAm_DC10 (Reply 47): Remember, the timeout should and is an idea for dealing with member to member derailing thread situations. Not Moderator - Member.

Straight up, that's not at all how I read what Monique wrote in the thread starter. You might want to regroup on this one.

Quoting Flyheligirl (Thread starter): 3. Cool Down Rule - We will administer a new rules that allows a cool down period. Often times, a user or mod will get heated over a difference of opinion and the situation potentially can negatively escalate. The 24 hour cool off rule will allow both user and mod to step away from the situation and cool down without a ban.