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

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

SORRY

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 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!

"...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!



[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?



[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).]