OK Kokonutz, you've confused me http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

I don't believe this is abstract - I'm trying to develop a tangible proposal for Randy's review. Geez - the furthest thing from my mind is developing a mirror site with the only variance being moderators. I think that would be WAY too confusing - not to mention redundant expense.

Which is not to say I don't appreciate your comment about competition. I have no ownership of the site, thus I'm not invested either financially or emotionally in driving FT toward some kind of preeminent status in the world of travel-oriented bulletin boards. I am, however, invested in applying the resources I have to reenergize FT - it's where friends like you reside!

Thanks James, I (using the internet for 10 years now), combine the word moderator with the meaning it has in the usenet, in which the moderator has to acknowledge every post
(I know there are bypasses, but thats the theory).

With the ease of getting e-mail addresses from the likes of Yahoo and Hotmail. Having an e-mail verification is not the best idea. If we really want to verify that a handle is legit (and not one thought of spur of the moment to just slam somebody) I would propose a snail mail verification process.

You sign up and provide an e-mail address as well as a mailing address.

None of this information is passed out or sold in any way without the express permission of the person signing up.

The person signing up is allowed to lurk but not post (of course you don't have to sign up to just lurk).

A password is supplied to the person via snail mail and once the person receives this password they are allowed to post and can change things (like the password) in their profile.

The mailing costs would be minimal using postal bulk rate mailing as I am sure the people at FlyerTalk are already using for other mailings.

Just an idea that would discourage quick sign ups with the sole intent to cause problems or to slam people.

such a bulk-rate snail mail would take between 4 - 6 weeks from North America to the swiss Alps and it might never arrive in some (other) remote places of this FlyerTalk-world.

reconsidered.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-05-2001).]

isch aen anderi sprooch als änglisch ou erloubt? (swiss german)

Ist eine andere Sprache als Englisch auch erlaubt? (deutsch)

ect-ce que vous allez permettre le français aussi? (french)

permecen Vd. también el idioma espanol? (spanish)

will the board (the monitors) allow other languages than english too?

If I understand it, the snail mail concept would prevent users signing up today and subsequently slamming/spamming us. I would question the degree to which this has historically been a problem? The bigger issues from my mind all involve participants who have been members for quite some time. Yes, there is the occasional spammer - but spammers are patient and we will deal w them in the same manner, no matter how long it takes them to gain access.

The question is, what do we gain from the perspective of the current objectives? Anonymity is a strong preference to some. I fear we might lose some valuable contributors should we require a physical address for registration.

I believe best efforts are really to handle this at least for now on the honor system as described in the proposal, and busting folks as they are exposed for violations. I'm not digging my heels in here, and I would frankly prefer some legitimate verification process. I just don't see a verification solution that doesn't create as many issues as it addresses.

I appreciate all the thought and energy that went into your original post, svpii, and appreciate everyone who contributed. FT is obviously a very meaningful newsgroup/discussion board to those who treasure it. HOWEVER as another poster mentioned, every newsgroup since the beginnning of the internet has suffered the same issues - what happens when a few sociopaths/bored teenagers/moody loners/stalkers (take your pick) dominate the discussion and make it unpleasant ofr the 90% of people who care?? Personally, as a relatively new member but longer-time lurker,I think it's not as simplistic a problem as one or two "bad apples." There are significant number of posters who respond to EVERY narcissistic/attacking/misguided thread from the same few people with an ever escalating set of tirades of their own. Having moderators wil help that some but it won;t chage the fact that there are a lot of peple who like to argue...especially with someone who is nasty and pigheaded.

I think all of the sugggestions posted are valuable ones FOR A BOARD where the owner/moderator/ SYSOP wants to take a real active role in the direction of the board. I don't think that's the case here and without that, moderators etc are going to be subject to their own biases etc which in my experience doesn't help the flaming/bashing etc. FOr ex. what if a certain member wanted to be a moderator? What if he'she wanted to sit on the council? Who says yes or no??


While I don't love AOL,(and no flames about this please - I know about most savvy people's s disdain for AOL) , the IGNORE button has saved a number of discussion groups there from disintegrating into flame war hell. I think building the IGNORE command into FT would have just as positive an effect as all the other suggestions combined. AND if it's only dollars that prevents this from happening, I will pay FT dues to get it moving.

THanksfor listening. I don't want to lose this place but I see it going the path of many honorable discusison groups before it..



------------------
"My only bleedin' hope
Is for the folk who can't cope..." - TLC

strongly held views squeakr http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

I agree very strongly that an 'ignore function' would be desirable, by allowing each individual to be their own moderator. That certainly would be simpler than much of what is suggested above, would surely be the subject of greater concensus and might solve some of the problems without being over regulation. As such, it is a good compromise that might be included in the 'revised proposal'.

[This message has been edited by james (edited 03-05-2001).]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by james:
[B]strongly held views squeakr http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

SORRY http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redface.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redface.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/redface.gif

My screen just hangs and doesn't show it's posted..is this a problem only for Mac's??

I will try to make my point once more, perhaps more clearly. Any "solution" for FT's so-called problems need to be simple - extremely simple- for it to work. Our tendency is to over-design and to complicate, and the cumbersome structure that results will throttle Flyer Talk.
Moderators, I believe will be helpful. A "Hot Debate" forum, I think, will not.... it will only further complicate the issue of what is appropriate and what is not. For moderators to work we need a few basic- yet simple- policies: for instance, there is really no written policy, even yet, that multiple handles cannot be used. I have never used any... but how would anyone who did ever know that they weren't supposed to? We hardly can fault mutliple users if nobody has said they are not to be used. But the fewer policies the better, IMHO.

James and Squeakr: We have had indications that the new BB technology under consideration has the 'ignore' feature. I believe it will be valuable to some and in some cases it would not be valuable. As I said earlier - I would not always want to completely ignore a user - just what he/she may be saying today http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif But it's a good personal option.

The premise of the proposal and a manageable point of contact with Randy (that the moderator/UAC would provide) is a buy-in from Randy. Either he or his staff would have to agree to a reasonable period of time to respond to cries for help beyond the moderator's scope of responsibility. As the ultimate authority, Randy I believe, makes the determination of moderators.

The council would be elected or partially elected/ partially appointed, and there would be a mechanism for allowing individuals who wished to serve an opportunity to be considered for the slate of nominees. Whether that mechanism is a nominating committee of one in the person of Randy, or some other process is a "how" and therefore a TBD item.


[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-05-2001).]

server is so slow it told me it timed out - but obviously it hadn't

[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-05-2001).]

I would suggest two things:
1. Moderators groups (usenet style) for the most actice groups.
2. An ignore function.

OMNI WARNING: Perhaps everyone stayed home from work due to the "storm of the century" and they now online and thus swamping routers and servers on the east coast and thensome! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

"...I believe we want to keep policies and procedures at a level that cause the least restriction on personal freedoms while effecting a structure that facilitates a quicker response to significant issues that do arise..."

Yes, primarily just deal with any loss of civility and respect! There is no place for personal acrimony!

Nor would I like to personally see additional requirements that would very likely deter new surfers/lurkers to post and I fear necessarily providing addresses and paying compulsory fees will do that! You never know who will post what will be of the most interest and use to you! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif



[This message has been edited by doc (edited 03-05-2001).]

Is it too late now to predict that Bernie will momentarily make a wonderful post with which I will largely agree? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif



[This message has been edited by doc (edited 03-05-2001).]

Thought it wouldn't go thru

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Ooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Ooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

A lot of work and brain has been put in all that stuff.

What I can't understand is, why you all wanna change those unwritten FT rules. More than 99 % of all FT'ers are behaving the "right way". What I learned in my life is:
Don't try to implement rules just to get the exceptions (or execeptional behavior) solved. Rules are to be set to regulate the "usual" things.
If moderators will monitor the boards we will start fighting with the interpretion of those guys in the future.
What happened over the last weeks and months is not only to blame on OZ but on a very few others as well, who with obvious lust answered the flaming.

We don't need rules or moderators for just 5-7 people.
The only rule would be ... ignoring - as was advised here on these boards over and over again from the most reasonable members.

Imagine these boards being your favorite bar: Hundreds of people each and every night. People you like to meet and talk to - many of 'em you had become friends. Some of 'em you just don't like very much. In the back there is one who is rude, offensive and aggressive (and some others like to fight with him and argue). Some nights he's yelling so that everybody can and must listen. Some times this guy even offends you or one of your friends on his way to the bathroom. Well he's just one out of a hundred or so nice people.

What would you do: Call the police ? What for ? Call the bartender or the owner to "monitor" this guy (these guys) ? Leave and never come back to a place, where you have many friends.

C'mon ... the internet is a mirror of the real life

Ooooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Oooooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Ooooooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Oooooooooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Oooooooooooops

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Everything works fine again, see .... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Edited all the posts, which I thought wouldn't go thru for better following the thread.

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Imminent death of FlyerTalk predicted.

Bernie-- Well said. But, dont you agree that you have to draw the line somewhere?

I like the proposal -- IN ITS ORIGINAL FORMAT.

Discussing the details of it before there's a consensus on the general principals seems pointless.

But I support the original proposal.

Yup, what is to prevent another flame war from starting? Say if Ozstamps leaves Flyertalk for good and there are no further conflicts, great. But based on history, I predict doc will the next controversial poster on FT. When there is a disagreement, doc will cart a list of difficult-to-answer ettiquette/behavior questions that he wants answered . I guess this is so that he can know the boundaries within which he is allowed to operate? In any case, without an answer from our host and without moderators, doc will continue doing what he wants to do, that will tick some people off, they will do what they want to do, etc. Here comes another flame war and we are back to square one.

Well posting a reply was awful yesterday night.

Doc how come you knew ?

No, Gaucho, I don't think so. As I mentioned, I don't believe it to be helpful to have a bunch of rules to deal with just five - seven guys. I had my fight with OZ (over the Suadi Jet in LAS), learned from it and from that day on went out of his way. Worked very well.
I hardly understood those members who argued with him over and over again (Premex included). This wouldn't have gone that far, if everyone would have ignored him - as they probably would have done in real life.

Kyklin, this is supposed to be an open forum, so everybody is invited to "do what he wants" you and me included. This forum is not meant to please everyone everyday and to "discipline" certain members to the like of everybody else.

What do you think how explicit (and looooong) the rules should be to make doc behave and post the way you want.

Rudi's question on languages is quite as complicated. We post in many languages like German, French, Spanish sometimes even Latin and "Arturish" and English, of course.
Who should monitor ? Who would be capable of doing so ? Would you get it, if I call you names in German ? Would any moderator ?

See ... we would be discussing rules and censorship and the interpretion for months just over the most simple things.

Do you all think that rules would work out, when pure common sense did not ? Even with rules there would be people leaving b/ c one day they may think, that just one single rule or interpretion of it will not fit them.

So, please, let it go !

[This message has been edited by bernie (edited 03-06-2001).]

Discounting the multiple posts of yesterday ( http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/frown.gif), I have tabulated results from 23 respondants thus far. I have categorized as follows:

Approval by categories:
General Approval
Moderators
User Advisory Council
Hot Debate Room
Multiple Aliases

There is a similar table for Disapprovals, as well as a section for comments and suggestions either pertinent to these categories or outside them.

If a respondant indicated general approval but disapproved of one category, that respondant’s responses were categorized as a positive response to “general approval” and a negative response to “(specific category)”. If a respondant indicated approval of several specific categories, but did not indicate general approval, only those categories indicated were marked.

Note: There were several comments with valid suggestions as to variations or modifications of the broad category concepts as initially written. These will be incorporated into the final summary, but will be a schedule indicating comments and suggestions. The results as tabulated only address a general position on the broad concept category.

The results to date:
General Approval 10
Moderators 2
UAC 1
Hot Debate Room 2
Multiple Aliases 0

General Disapproval 4
Moderators 1
UAC 1
Hot Debate Room 4
Multiple Aliases 1


Please note that I have received many emails offering both approval and disapproval. My instincts are that these should not be tabulated due to issues surrounding identity, etc. Several people emailing me gave neither FT alias or name, so I have no idea whether they are duplications of actual posted comments, from one person or the same people, etc.

I would be glad to email any of you a spreadsheet that indicates how I counted responses by FT alias if you will email me your request for such. Or, I could email it to someone who is able to post it to a URL for common review.

My suggestion is that I continue to monitor for additional input through today and tomorrow, and finalize the tabulated results Wednesday night. At that point, we can decide what further steps are indicated.

Thanks.


[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-06-2001).]

Hi,

Not sure if you have my votes in your talley.

My preferences:

The results to date:
General Approval YES
Moderators YES
UAC YES
Hot Debate Room NO NO NO
Multiple Aliases NO NO NO



[This message has been edited by wharvey (edited 03-06-2001).]

Some, of course, do not ever come to FT.

Some come to FT with only their eyes - and never post.


Yet, of the registered posters:

Some come only to share information & obtain feedback.

Some come with matches to start a fire.

Some come with gasoline to pour on the dying embers.

Some come with flameproof bunker gear!


While I personally come only to share information & obtain useful feedback, sadly, I also come with flameproof bunker gear!

Perhaps it's time to ask what you come to FT with? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Bring a solution rather than a problem! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Since we're voting I'll vote -- No to everything. I like things as they are. I wish those leaving weren't, but other than understanding internet flaming was here long before them and will be here long after them, not much to be said for that.

I too would like to see things remain basically as they are. I understand the problems, but don't think the solutions will fix those problems. The best part of the proposal addresses profanity. But my impression is that is basically what's done already. I, for one, dislike rules that spell out profanity.

Bernie, you may choose to ignore certain people and it is great if that works for you, however, you cannot force others to ignore them, too.

Prior to Ozstamps, doc was the most controversial person on FT. He believes either 1) he can keep on posting, knowing he will get flamed, and use his "flameproof bunker", 2) or have Randy define the rules.

If rules (in whatever form that it may take, moderators, enforced TOS, clarified decorum, etc.) can prevent flame wars (see #1) from occurring, which I believe it can, I am all for it. I respect your ideas Bernie but this is where you and I disagree.

I do not want doc to post the way I want nor the other way around. I want people to post in a way that flame does not occur and I do not belive ignoring the posts is an answer. I am for moderators and UAC svpii.

I too, oppose all of your proposals.

Was there a vote on the most controversial poster on FT? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/confused.gif

Curiously, I must have somehow missed it! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif Never even saw who was on the ballot! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif If asked, however, I could provide several names for future consideration. Doubtlessly, they would include the two currently banned FT'ers, as well as several others who received rather stern warnings from Randy & Co.

On election day, however, I'd likely abstain! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I'd also be quite certain that everyone is on the same page regarding the precise meaning in context of the term "controversial"! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif


Personally, I do now as always:

Post what I think is proper/right for all!

Post what I think is helpful/useful for many!

Post what the host(s) agrees is both proper/right & helpful/useful on their/our site!

Despite occasional errors/mistakes, these guidelines work reasonably well for me, and I'd suggest we would all do well to use them and ask ourselves these very same questions prior to hitting the submit/enter button! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif