Punki: My research indicates that it is possible either for a moderator or administrator to edit posts within a thread, e.g. erase them, and leave the rest of the thread intact, OR to move the entire thread to another forum. It is not clear to me that it is technically possible to move individual posts from one thread to another.. I am, howver, prepared to be corrected. As to terminology of "time out" vs "hot debate", I intentionally put the term "hot debate" in parentheses to indicate this was just a working term.

James:
Assuming moderators are chosen..., the guidelines within which they work must be public so that they can be clearly understood by the membership. It should also be clear on what grounds a moderator would be removed I concur

I would like to see any moderators have a 'sweeping' role, where topics can be moved from forums where they are off-topic, to those where they are on-topic I concur - this is a typical moderator function

[the UAC]... makes the big assumption that Webflyer is willing to devolve such matters from themeselves as owners and operators, to us as customers. If they take the step of accepting the UAC, it is implied that they will have to listen to it It absolutely makes the assumption that Randy will have agreed to listen. This exercise is the development of hopefully a cogent, concise proposal to deliver to Randy. Hopefully he will enter into contemplation of such in a good spirit of "what's good for the community". He, of course, has the option to use my favorite term: bite me!

...presumably all registered members would be entilted to vote. I struggle to see a mechanism whereby existing multiple usernames could be excluded from such an election. Moreover, I don't really see how stuffing could be prevented where an individual generates spurious identities I agree the voting mechanism will have to be carefully considered. In practicality, it is impossible to completely prevent disallowed multiple aliases. All we can do is make them a policy violation, catch them when we can (and ultimately we usually do), and act swiftly and decisively. It may be that voting rights are more stringent than registration rights - perhaps no anonymous voting. This requires thought - but I would prefer not to get hung on on mechanics until we've reached something resembling a consensus on general content.

I don't want to see a situation where the current 'use the search' answer is replaced by 'ask the UAC' or 'because the UAC said so' I agree and I don't anticipate that it would. I don't see members abdicating their instincts to offer information when they have it to anyone asking a question. And I don't think we'll ever replace our valuable researchers who so willingly offer links to a search they have done or the (usually) kind suggestion to search for yourself

a member wishes to contribute further positive information to a locked thread, would they be free to start it again? if so, what happens when/if flaming starts again? I would envision that the thread could begin again - and if the flaming started again, he/she would be "reminded" that "hot debate" can be had on this subject in the other forum.

Once again, this is a grey area, but one in which some policy would be welcome To the extent possible, I agree. I would maintain that I see precious little profanity that was a language issue - but moderators should be able to handle that. Similarly, verbal attacks are often subjective. Characterizing what constitutes one would be a daunting task. As intelligent adults, we understand the intent. To the extent an individual posts content which is misinterpreted or is otherwise borderline, then I believe private communication between the moderator and the member should suffice.

for preventing multiple aliases in general, just how do we do that? In the absence of strident measures (credit card, etc), we don't ever achieve complete control over this. But we accept this weakness, and be diligent in our response to discovery of these.

Also, I can see how these policies would apply to newcomers, but will there be a retroactive sweep of all existing members as well, those who don't comply being kicked out? That would be my suggestion.

Does webflyer have the resources or the desire to police this board? ] I think we actually would make FT's police work more efficient w/ this structure. The advent of moderators and the UAC should allow them to be involved only where administrators are required.

[/i]Will changes me made in the framework of strong, well publicised guidelines (i.e. will there be strong leadership, or a continuance of the current state of self-policing and almost complete freedom)?[/i] I believe we enhance the leadership availability of FT management under this structure as well as our own ability to help ourselves. Again, Randy would have to agree to be responsive to the structure for success.

How can some of these ideas be fairly and effectively enforced? We figure that out. My VP IT says "if you can think of it in the context of our service, I can build it". My reply is that if we agree on the "what", the IQ in this room can undoubtedly figure out the "how". Here, in a formal meeting, in a teleconference, on a website, net meeting: you name it. But first, let's reach agreement of what we want to do. Then let's address the 'how' issues.

Doc: A very valid point. No, you're not myopic. And yes, some "humor" was certainly not "ha-ha". But I would maintain that some are hilarious and I think we can manage this in the same manner proposed for dealing with personal attacks. [/b]

Thanks to everyone for their input. Please continue. I would very much like to collate these responses into a revised proposal by Wednesday. My instinct is there is some time-sensitivity here if we are to heal this rift with neat stitches rather than allowing an open wound to develop into a big scar.

I would point out that as with any new system or approach, we will never anticipate ALL minutia of the applied concept. We must approach this as a work in progress, with common commitment and as common a sense of purpose as a large, diverse group can accomplish.