tom911

As jackal has posted, we have an existing signature committee of moderators. I'm not a moderator and wasn't aware of that. I guess any new proposal would not impact current moderators except those on the committee who would correspond with offenders. Might need to add more committee members depending on what changes are made by the Talk Board and how proactive the committee wants to be. Sounds like the majority of moderators won't be impacted at all, aside from forwarding complaints to the committee.

Any Talk Board members on the signature committee? Will the committee also be handling complaints about referral links which seem to be a focus of this thread?

Tom in Jersey City

goalie

I can only speak for myself and say not me (and to the best of my knowledge, no to anyone else [or if yes, they've kept it close to the vest])

MSPeconomist

Is the membership list of this signatures committee of moderators considered to be confidential?

lin821

Before our Community Director chimes in, this is what she had said to the public in one thread that I'd referenced in post#2:

(emphases mine)

Allow me to repeat one more time: referral links are used not just in signatures.

I am not sure if our "rotating" signature committee, or CD, ever gets what I've raised since 2009:

nsx

I hope not, because every time we send someone a PM about a signature we tell the member who we are! I'm on the committee. I send maybe a few PMs a month, so it's not a lot of work. The reason for having a small group do this is that it provides consistent treatment across FT. Also, we can somewhat standardize our PMs for common problems such as unknowing violation of a particular rule.

MSPeconomist

I like the idea of this being the responsibility of a small group. It does make consistency a lot easier and also saves work through the development of standardized replies.

However, I think it would be a good idea--transparency--to list the membership of this committee as well as the membership of any similar committees of moderators or others on FT such as committees responsible for proposing changes to the TOS, etc.

Doing so could result in committee members getting a few PMs from FT members but IMO that comes with the territory of such leadership positions. It wouldn't seem unreasonable, for example, for someone to ask in advance for clarification on whether a proposed signature would be allowed, although it would be too much if someone tried to engage in a long argument or sequentially went through a long list of slightly different proposed signatures that all exhibited the same problem.

Mary2e

I saw a new one a few days ago... not only blog links, but links to a buy a book the poster wrote.

That's why I don't think any links should be permitted in signatures.

goalie

I'm inclined to agree with you on this-or at least until there is some form of uniformity and with that, I would lean towards turning off all signatures and then having the signature committee reviewing the signatures* (and if they need help, solicit volunteers <raises hand>) or perhaps make a site wide announcement that signatures with links which do not conform will be removed** or perhaps go as far as allowing signatures but links will not be permitted (and I don't know if that involves a TB vote, revision of the ToS, a simple flip of the switch bases on the CD's recommendation, all of the above or none of the above)

*not sure how the process works and if turning off signatures kills the ability to review them or not.

**and then wait for the fur to fly when folks wonder where their signature went because they didn't read the announcement

mia

In my understanding this is already prohibited by the rules. Did you use the Alert function to bring the post(s) to the attention of the moderators in the forums where the posts appeared?

SkiAdcock

I would be against an all signatures must be turned off policy. Not all FTers have links in their signatures. My guess is the majority of FTers don't.

The other thing re: saying no links at all in a signature is that often, if an FTer is organizing a FT get-together in Community Buzz, such as the upcoming annual Singapore DO (SIN DO) or the Toledo OH DD, the organizers put a link in their signature linking to the thread in CommunityBuzz.

So while the issue of affiliate links needs to be addressed, I think saying no signatures at all or no links at all is not the solution.

Cheers.

lin821

I am not shy of using RBPs. I can probably nominate myself as the RBP Queen, if there's ever a such contest. Anyone who ever reads my lengthy posts on this issue will know how much those self-promoting referral links disgust me. So, yes, I do/did every time when I see/saw one.

BTW, MilesBuzz, SPAM and Travel Products Forum MODs tend to take prompt & proper action toward those posts I'd RBPed.

(bolding mine)

If it's "already prohibited by the rules", why are there still mods "refuse" to act on my RBPs on those problem posts in 2013?

Is this inconsistency due to ineffective MOD training seminars/workshops? Or is it because MODs have such a wide degree of freedom to "interpret" said TOS since every MOD may "understand" this rule differently?

I had aired my frustration multiple times before. This is what I said in 2011 (w/ my bolding this time):

I start wondering why I even bother repeating myself over and over at this point.

ps. If you want "names", I can tell you at least 3 of my recent RBPs (about referral links) were not acted upon. One in TravelBuzz Forum, the other in Travel Technology Forum, and another in a destination forum. One of those posts I also RBPed more than once. (I remember which fora those posts were in but have no recollection of which threads since we don't get to keep copies of RBPs.)

tom911

Pretty clear what may be a priority to you is not a priority to some moderators (or even a lot of members--I don't really have strong feelings one way or the other on referral links, for instance). I've complained about a number of issues in the past and been told mods have wide discretion when it comes to enforcing the TOS. You're not going to change that no matter how many RBPs you send.

The only way you're going to change enforcement of referral/signature links is to become a moderator yourself and engage the other moderators on the private moderator forum. Why don't you ask the Community Director to appoint you as a moderator at large to deal with signature and referral links? That would be a good first step if you want to focus on that agenda.

lin821

I disagree.

One needs not to be a mod to ask for TOS clarification or refinement when the rules are "too open" for interpretation. MODs only reinforce TOS. Any TOS revision shouldn't be ignored just because it affects a small percentage of members who choose to abuse or bent the fuzzy rules.

As a matter of principle, IMHO, it would just be silly not to act upon something that can only improve FT.

nsx

Publicizing committees is something the Community Director would need to decide.

As to the TOS, I'd like to point out that at one time TalkBoard took the lead in developing the Terms of Service. I see no reason that the TalkBoard shouldn't make any and all suggestions it wants to regarding TOS changes. Don't be shy. You're an advisory committee, so advise! @:-)

Beckles

Links to blogs and links to referrals I don't have a problem with as long as they are just a small part of an informative post and they are relevant to the post and the thread. Here's one example from a random FT'er, there is a referral link in the post, it's clearly labeled as a referral link, and it is relevant to the greater content of the post and that content adds to the discussion of the thread.

I understand this is harder to enforce than just banning all links, but that seems draconian to me ...

I'm hardly a fan of all these travel bloggers in general, but if they contribute to FT in a meaningful way, I don't mind them putting links to their blog to relevant content as long as their post containing the link adds relevant and useful content to FT without having to click the link.