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

Kyklin, I'm a very liberal minded person - so I don't wanna force nobody into nothing. I did just suggest to use common sense. Ignoring people or arguments or discussions or singular events you dislike is just one method to deal with it. But it is the one method almost everyone uses in the "real world".
I just don't understand, why so many are willing to regulate stuff, which isn't regulated "outside".

No, No, No, No, No. Weren't their five questions. OZ is a joke, people take this waaaay to seriously. People are going to come and go no matter what you do. This is still a great forum for flyers. Just listen to us newbies, we all love it. Let's talk about something important like how can I get AA miles and fly to SIN for under $900 like you can on UA from DFW?

SVPII,

Oh yeah... can we have another rule.

No posts will be allowed that only say "I AGREE" or only have emoticons with no value added? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

William

Please add my vote dissenting against all these proposals. The board seems to have survived all of the past "crisis du jour" without them, and I expect it will continue to do so in the future.

Though I haven't posted much, I began lurking over a year ago, and finally posted for the first time in October. I also took the time to read most of the old threads, way back to 1998. And to tell you the truth I don't see much difference in what happened back then as to what's happening now. Change a couple of names (and mix in some of the same names) and the situations are practically identical. So are the same indignant cries for moderation or pleading for intervention from Randy, along with the same people yet again threatening to quit.

It just seems to play out over and over again.

My 2¢ worth.

I say keep things the way they are.

But with an option to 'can' the offenders.

By the way, I don't mind Doc's posts. They're informative. And I'll say this about Doc, he does seem to rise above it all.
That's good advice to everyone.

I just don't see the need to be mean spirited like some of the others. What's the point.

Dan
edited for spelling

[This message has been edited by dhammer53 (edited 03-06-2001).]

This in an uninformed reply. I have not had time to read all of the replies to the original post, only the first 20 or so. My big question (and again, I'm uninformed) is that, given the current state of the economy, do the people who manage this message board have the funds to execute the items suggested?

If the answer is "no", do we want this board to go under because some participants want maximum regulation? Don't get me wrong. I don't want to see rudeness, crudity or unnecessary profanity. However, I also don't want to lose this frequent flyer community by requiring more than it can deliver. I am happy with what I have found here - it may not be perfect, but that is the case with most message boards and I would not want to put a free, valuable service in jeopardy because some people don't want a free, valuable service unless it is perfect.

FF

I think Premex's problem was that Oz kept posting and reposting inaccurate information, so Premex as an altruist felt it his duty to keep pointing this out so that other perhaps less seasoned flyertalkers wouldn't be misled. He would, I believe, say you can't simply ignore or walk away from errors when this board's life-blood is sharing accurate information and experiences.

When you're dealing with someone who has an almost pathological need to be accepted, admired, never considered to be wrong, etc, as Oz obviously does, the predictable result is that the pathological person will eventually turn round and start grossly abusive and insulting name-calling in their frustration at being consistently shown up as less-than-perfect. And that kind of name-calling can really hurt, however much you try to rise above its childishness. When you add in e-mails received in quantity, all containing shouting and abuse, plastered with bold capitals and exclamation marks, in your own personal e-mailbox, that can be the end. There seems to be no escape from the abuse, even in your own home. I can sympathise with Premex's decision to withdraw.

To my way of thinking, we could do without regular moderators, if there was some way of consigning the name-calling posts to another place - Hot Debate Room, Sin Bin, or whatever you want to call it. It would simply need the injured person to notify Randy or A.N. Other that it had taken place. Then the thread could be scrutinised and the offending post(s) removed (assuming FT does have the technology to do that) and placed elsewhere, leaving the remainder of the thread intact. To that limited extent, I go along with svpii. It still wouldn't deal with the e-mails received at home, though.

By the way, isn't it great to have clear and intelligent discussions, unencumbered by outbursts from the aforementioned temporarily-banned person... The board is so peaceful http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif in comparison with its recent state.

[This message has been edited by 1P (edited 03-07-2001).]

I'd say too that keep things as they are.

I must admit to being puzzled and a little disappointed by the many, I am sure well intended, calls for 'ignoring.' Would you ignore untruths told about you that were spread throughout a community you care about? Would you feel it an effective response to do this? If you asked any politician they would respond 'NO' because they have learned that untruths unanswered become truth in a significant part of a community. If Oz were only hyperventilating a bit he could be ignored safely and effectively, and I would recommend that course of action. However, he makes aggresively false statements about actual people. He attacks people and spreads information potentially harmful to them, sometimes when those people are not present to defend themselves. I have avoided many of the Oz wars, I have ignored his self-serving and program-destructive posts, but that leaves his posts that meet the criteria I mentioned above. I don't think in good conscience you can give him free ride on those sorts of things. Even if you excuse the annoyance at his constant and voluminous postings you should not excuse everthing.

I heartily re-point out the absolutely changed nature of the board outside Oz presence. The same was true when he was briefly offline during the holiday. This place is different, no doubt about it. The 'feel' is back. I mean, this is a guy who brags about 'leaving a string be for 7 hours'...this when a look at the time shows that is sleep time in Australia... what a guy!

To the thread topic I add my view that moderation/controls are not likely to change much and be a lot of work for people. This problem is extremely well circumscribed. The hesitation I have is that if precedent is set for removing people for something other than profanity there is of course some danger that the definition for removal could begin a journey from the present almost non-existent possibility toward enforcement of a politically correct or fairly narrow allowance for the expression of ideas. However, in this case I still think removal is the answer. Oz does not spread just bad ideas (those I would have to accept, perhaps occasionally challenge) he spreads untruth that has destructive force, that, in my opinion, is unacceptable.

1P: excellent points.

I'm conscious of being fairly new, although I've lurked my preferred suppliers' boards for a year or so. My vote is for moderators and as little formal structure as possible.

[edited for spelling]

[This message has been edited by LexPassenger (edited 03-07-2001).]