At risk of becoming part of the ambient noise problem, I nonetheless cross-post NJ David’s “What will happen now” in Randy's, http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000319.html as it thoughtfully deals with the “problem”. But, here, Svpii clearly deals with the solution. She has emerged as one of the clearest and levelheaded thinkers on the subject of reform, and I hope that any further debate is centralized on this thread.

I second that. Well done svpii.

I am just having a problem with the Hot Debate Room. Isn't that only looking for trouble?

[This message has been edited by chexfan (edited 03-04-2001).]

At the risk of sounding flippant - I don't think we have to look very hard for it!

However, I do hope we can do a better job isolating it..

I'm forgetting what I've said where over the past three days (and thank you Jailer for suggesting we centralize to this thread) - but my point is that we've tried the "take it to email" - repeatedly w/ no discernable effect. We've tried "let's calm down and remember why we like each other" - repeatedly - and with only short term effect.

We need a process that is predictable, understandable, and sustainable and that at a minimum isolates the flames that some find such entertainment in. A remote secondary benefit (because again, we're dealing w/ humans here) might be that if the audience for the flames decreases, so will their frequency.


[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-04-2001).]

Terrific effort!

Is it technologically possible to isolate a single post or posts from a specific thread and move them to a "Time Out Room", along with their authors for a limited period of time?

Could this take the place of the Hot Debate Room?

I am all for hot debate on any subject and would like to see that allowed on any thread, only eliminating personal attacks and vulgarity from the main stream.

My inclination is that most posters would catch on very quickly what caused them, together with their post, to be shuttled to the Time Out Room. If that is where they wish to stay, so be it. Those of us who wish to ignore them would know where not to go.

FlyerTalk is the only Bulletin Board I (ever) activly participate.

This very limited personal experience doesn't allow me to judge about feasabilities of many proposals and I can even less guess the probable outcome.

I admire the work svpii did put into the proposal which, on/with my limited first sight, looks convincing - at the same time I am sure, that personally I would never want and accept (the responsability) to be a moderator of any FlyerTal-board/forum.

I am very interested to hear more PRO and CONTRAS to the proposals to enable me to make a better personal judgement on the issue.

OK, I am willing to engage in this discourse, which I very much hope will be productive. I do have a few comments and criticisms; they may sound negative in tone, but they are real concerns, at least for me, and they represent points on which concensus may be neccesary. I should also say I am not a fan either of censorship or regulation, except where absolutely unavoidable. Numbering relates to svpii's original points:

1. Assuming moderators are chosen, in addition to svpii's suggestions, 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 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 (working either from the existing guidelines or strengthened ones). The simplest way this would work is with the consent of the moderators of both forums involved. A link to the moved thread could be left where the initial thread was, with the old thread being locked.

2. This UAC idea seems unwieldy to me. First, it 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. Moreover, mechanisms do exist for much of what is described already, in the form of the Suggestions, Technical and Randy Petersen forums, all of which seem to work fairly well. I also have great concerns about the elctorate; svpii addresses multiple usenames below, but 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. Furthermore, such a system would need to be clearly explained to new visitors as it would be quite uncommon for the internet. 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'. If it is adopted, I prefer the concept of half the members having 2 years terms and half 1 year. As for term-limits, I have always felt that if the election is democratic, artificial limits subvert the will of the electorate and I see no reason to support them in this context.

3. I like the hot room idea - particulalry the part about locking a thread in its existing forum and duplicating it in the 'war room'. That reduces my concern about losing valuable items in flame threads. If 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?

4. This is a can of worms. Firstly, insults can be very country specific. What is insulting in US English is not in British English, etc. etc. How about non-English languages? I freely admit that the current software is also inadequate in this regard. However, specific guidleines should be published as to what will and will not be tolerated. Also, by 'verbal attcks towards any individual will ... not be tolerated', I assume you mean attacks on an individual's character (+ethnicity, sexualtity, etc)? Clearly, if someone posts information that is false, or incorrect, I should be entitled to correct it. They may perceive my action as an attack on them. Once again, this is a grey area, but one in which some policy would be welcome.

5. OK. However, how do you prevent multiple identities?

6. I think this is already the case (and I completely agree with it).

7. I disagree. If multiple aliases are not permitted, there should not be exceptions. I think it is clear that even use of the 'comedy' aliases has caused resentment among those being attcked for using them for more sinister purposes.

As for preventing multiple aliases in general, just how do we do that? I have more than 5 email addresses that I could register with that are specific to an organisation (i.e. not Yahoo, hotmail, etc.). In another of these threads, someone suggested using credit card registration (not for payment, but for identification). That would only work if full details were taken, including full name and billing address; are people prepared to divulge that information to a bulletin board? 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?

8. Good idea. Once again, my only problem is with the fair and consistent enforcement.

There are several recurring themes here: Does webflyer have the resources or the desire to police this board? 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)? How can some of these ideas be fairly and effectively enforced?

James


[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-04-2001).]

[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-04-2001).]

"...However, specific guidleines should be published as to what will and will not be tolerated. Also, by 'verbal attcks towards any individual will ... not be tolerated', I assume you mean attacks on an individual's character (+ethnicity, sexualtity, etc)? Clearly, if someone posts information that is false, or incorrect, I should be entitled to correct it. They may perceive my action as an attack on them. Once again, this is a grey area, but one in which some policy would be welcome..."

Again policy, guidelines! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif


"...If multiple aliases are not permitted, there should not be exceptions. I think it is clear that even use of the 'comedy' aliases has caused resentment among those being attcked for using them for more sinister purposes..."

Comedy, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif While I think I have a pretty decent sense of humor, I've been somewhat astounded at some FT'ers in the past having claimed that they used "harmless" handles for the purpose of satire or parody! I saw in them attempts to seemingly inflict pain and suffering! Perhaps I am/was the myopic one! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

...Once again, my only problem is with the fair and consistent enforcement. Does webflyer have the resources or the desire to police this board?...

Absolutely! Fair and consistent

Excellent points, James! Thanks! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif




[This message has been edited by doc (edited 03-04-2001).]

I will add that even with moderators and the putative user council, people will always take their disagreements to the next stage. Webflyer, and probably specifically Randy Petersen, will always be the Court of Final Arbitration, final because they are final. Thus, the other things might just add another (two) layer(s) of beaurocracy and need not be necessary given some guidance about what will be tolerated and appropriate consequential action.

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! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

...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 http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

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.

I have given some thought to what Svpii recommended. As not being part of the solution can be construed as being part of the problem, I wanted to weigh in.

It occurs to me that we really are a fairly homogeneous group (I don’t anticipate that the AA people will call for a Jihad against the United folks). If we can’t figure this out, what hope is there for peace in the Middle East and the old Yugoslavian region?

I abhor censorship, and it is only with great misgivings that I imagine the marketplace of ideas being regulated. And to even consider censorship I have to shift my view of FT to be more of a club than strictly a BB. But someone yelling “Fire” in our crowded theater has caused a number of FT stalwarts to evacuate.

Looking at Svpii’s working proposal, it looks to me to be a full time job that few would do for pay, let alone on a volunteer basis. So, using the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid):

A Board of Governors, or User Advisory Council (UAC), could be voted in by popular vote. This Board, maybe 25 members, would have clearly defined powers and could, by say a 75% majority of a voting quorum do the following:

1. Move a thread from an active Board to a “contentious” or “time-out” or “Hot Debate” Board;
2. Lock down a thread;
3. Suspend a user for up to two weeks;
4. Recommend to Randy expulsion.

A defined number, say three, could make a motion for voting. Once a motion was made, it would be forwarded by email and voted on within a set number of days. Failure to get response from 50% +1 of the voting members would cause the motion to die.

Randy would have veto power over items one, two and three, above.

Names of the Governors would not be known to help curtail lobbying (I know, a little like a Kangaroo Court). Voting would be conducted off the Board and tallied by Randy’s crew.

I don't like any form of censorship.

I don't see how you can prevent multiple handles unless you take draconian measures, such as requiring a credit card for name and address verification. At that point, the cure becomes worse than the problem.

Everybody should be encouraged to adhere to guidelines, and when a thread gets out of hand, it should be closed. The main guideline I try to follow (and I often fail to follow it myself) is before I press submit, I ask myself, "Is this something that is useful for the community or not?" If I can't answer yes, don't press the submit button.

-David

PS: This same debate has occured in various forms on every form of internet news, chat rooms and BBS forums I've been part of since 1980. There will always be disruptive forces. It's how we deal with them that makes the difference. In my humble opinion, the only thing that's effective is to ignore them. Responding to disruptive forces only makes it worse.



[This message has been edited by LIH Prem (edited 03-04-2001).]

"...Looking at Svpii’s working proposal, it looks to me to be a full time job that few would do for pay, let alone on a volunteer basis. So, using the KISS principle (Keep It Simple Stupid): ..."

Exactly! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Recall that as much as I really do like FT, I, like Rudi, have suggested many times previously in advance that "moderator" is a position it is difficult to see myself filling under most any circumstances. It is a very important position indeed, and one needs to be vigilant and be willing to bend over backwards to be fair - as well as being VERY wise! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

That is why I thought it best be someone employed by Randy & Co! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Overall, I have no serious problems with the proposal, although I think simplification must remain the goal. The most helpful items seem to be (1) the advisory council and (2) moderators. I personally find the establishment of a new "hot debate" forum less helpful. Discussion and debate need to be permitted, even encouraged, in any forum. If they are inappropriate to a specific forum, they probably aren't appropriate in a "hot debate" forum either. This extra forum seems to add a layer of decision that is cumbersome and unnecessary.

Jailer - thanks for your response. As to the number of members in the council - or govenors - I would just suggest there not be so many it would be difficult to conduct discussions. As to the duties, I have no issues w/ your suggestions. Much of the remaining content in the proposal is either reiteration of existing policies or is able to be automated, so I believe it's more detailed than complicated.

LIH - I certainly understand and while I believe most of us capable of this approach, it's the remaining small percentage that consistently created the situation many believe call more more structure. If, however, the majority prefers to direct efforts toward just reinforcement of reasonable behavior, this proposal can certainly be dropped.

Doc - Yes, being a moderator would be a serious responsibility - but I believe there are good candidates in our community who would be willing to serve. The fact as I understand it is that Randy doesn't have available staff for this function. The point is to help extend the reinforcement of Randy's policies.

spvii:

Don't take my comments the wrong way .. I think this is a good discussion and one that needs to happen. Thanks for starting it.

-David