An Opening Proposal for Consideration
 

Based on postings and comments made to me privately, I have taken the liberty of crafting a first draft of a proposal to present to Randy. I realize there is NO proposition that will yield universal acceptance. However, as I and others have previously commented, if we are to address the circumstances leading to the current situation, we are then behooved to move toward a constructive action(s),rather than a continuance of discussion only.

I welcome your response and we'll see where this goes. I encourage you to be forward-looking and as objective as possible.

Opening Proposal:

The FT community has expressed a desire to effect policy and procedural changes which will preserve an atmosphere conducive to a genial exchange of information,, foster atmospherics conducive to a sense of community, and mitigate events or influences which threaten civil discourse. To that end, we hereby propose for consideration by the FT membership and FT management the following:

1. Moderators are initiated for key forums: Major Airlines, The Buzz, Flyertalk Community, General Travel, Only Randy Peterson. All other forums would be moderated as necessity may indicate. Such moderators will be chosen by the management of FT, and the performance guidelines for these moderators will similarly be developed by FT management.

2. A User Advisory Council (UAC) will be established for the purposes of providing input to FT management regarding feature requests, action requests that fall outside the scope of established policies and procedures, and general user issues as may be directed to them by the general FT user population. The group will meet on a schedule no less than quarterly by most convenient method. Minutes of the UAC meetings will be made available to the community on the FT site after review by FT management. The makeup of this UAC is suggested to be ten members, four of whom are chosen by FT management and six of whom are chosen by popular vote of the active FT participants. The slate of FT participants who have agreed to be considered for an elected UAC position will confirm such in writing or by email to FT management. The term for any individual’s participation in the UAC will be one year. Voting mechanisms and limitations on subsequent terms are to be determined (TBD) items.

3. A new forum will be opened (the Hot Debate Room). The purpose of such room would be to isolate continued debate over topics that are demonstrating potentiality to become counter to a genial exchange of information either by the nature of content or the general tone of the developing thread. Such thread that is becoming inflammatory either in content or tone may be locked in that forum by FT, and moved to this new forum, either upon request by 5 or more posters, or upon a decision by the moderator of the initial forum. In the event that posts in the (Hot Debate Room) violate stated policies, as posted publicly on the FT site, such thread will be locked wherever it may reside.

4. In no forum, including the (Hot Debate Room), will profanity in any form be tolerated. This includes altered spelling of profane terms if such alteration results in a clear intent. For instance S**T would not be tolerated. In comparison *#@% would not be considered a violation. Additionally, verbal attacks toward any individual will likewise not be tolerated. The moderator or FT management will have final determination of whether any term constitutes profanity or personal attack.

5. These policies will be stated publicly (as they are currently) upon registration. Any posters violating this rule will be subject to exclusion from posting for a seven day period. A second subsequent offense will cause the poster to be barred from posting for a thirty day period. A third subsequent offense will result in a permanent revocation of posting privileges. Notification of these actions will be directed to the individual at the email address of record in his/her FT registration profile. No public announcements will be made.

6. e-mail addresses will be a requisite for registration rights in FT so as to provide FT management a method for individual communication. The user will have the option to suppress this address from view in their profile.

7. Multiple aliases will be allowed for the express purpose of humor or specific purpose (e.g. Santa), providing they are registered to the same individual at the same email address. Users opting to register multiple aliases must choose for their email address to be able to be viewed in their profile so as to make it obvious to all users that the alias(s) are associated with the same individual. No registrant will be allowed to have multiple aliases except under these conditions.

8. Registrants will be queried as to whether they have been previously excluded from the site, or are under current suspension, or whether they have an active alias registered under a different email address from the one being currently registered. A “yes” answer to any of these queries will result in the registration attempt being denied. False answers to this question will result in permanent termination of the user’s access upon discovery of this rule(s) violation.



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

Very good contract..although it sounds pretty complicated..I do like the Hot Room forum idea a lot. You have my vote.

------------------
MRKEY

What about the "every person who joins must pay $1 to the level above" clause? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif


Sounds, great, svpii.

Hi,

Great Work!!!! Are you a lawyer? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The only area I am not sure I would agree with is the "Hot Debate Room". People should be able to debate without it becoming abusive or insulting.

I believe it is asking alot for people to act one way in one forum room and another way in other rooms.

I would prefer your "contract" without that "Hot Debate Room" clause.

If people truly want to continue debate, email addresses should be sufficient for this to happen.

Just my two cents.

William

Wharvey,
No - I'm not a lawyer, but I DID stay in a Holiday Inn Express once http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

While I would give credence to your suggestion, my observation is that we've had the "take it up in email" suggestion forever - and it isn't followed worth a whit. The "Hot Debate Room" is, I think, a way to accomodate human nature while making it clear to those with more fragile sensibilities to "enter at your own risk". You know, some people enjoy arguing minor points to the death with GREAT passion http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Others are made tense by it. So it offers clear choice and a way to say "take it outside" that's under OUR control.

I like it. A lot.

One thing I would add to the end of the first clause is something to the effect that "A private forum will be created where moderators and FlyerTalk management can discuss whether intervention is necessary or desirable under certain circumstances. A feedback mechanism for members who disagree with moderator decisions or style will also be provided."

And thanks for allowing Santa to stay!

excellent suggestion dgolds! And how could I NOT accomodate Santa http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Nice thoughtful effort, svpii! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Again, however, as I've so often noted, each of the following points should be specifically adressed, IMHO:

-Are multiple handles permitted?
-Is personal criticism permitted?
-Are friendly exchanges like 'Thanks' etc., between FT's to be discouraged?
-Is their a broadband problem to be considered so as to limit our posts?
-Is a certain degree of anonymity permitted or actively discouraged?
-Are repeated exchanges between 'undisclosed' family members/close friends permitted?
-What is the policy regarding tradgeties and posting them on FT? Is this discouraged?
-What language, specifically, is prohibited?
-Are complaints and ongoing customer service issues with providers appropriate?
-Is it acceptable for FT's to disclose personal information regarding other FT's specifically against their will?

Perhaps a brief statement addressing these concerns would be helpful, IMHO!

And, btw, what effect, if any, will the switch to a new server with all the added features Randy has mentioned, specifically including "squelch" have?

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

svpii- Dang..I too have stayed at the Holiday Inn Express...no points posted after 2 months...I wish you were a lawyer. Good thread...I think it makes a lot of sense!

------------------
MRKEY

Sounds good, great work svpii. I think doc also brings some good points.



------------------
Gaucho100K

Doc - It was not my intention to be presumptive and try to represent a position on ALL potential questions regarding usage. I have only addressed in this proposal those issues which seem to be currently problematic in a significant way. That is not to say the questions you raised previously aren't in need of a position. But I do believe that most of them could be addressed by the UAC taking stock and making recommendations.


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

Thanks, svpii, understood! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Prior to any UAC being established, Randy & Co has been, and is now the current UAC equivalent, no?

Would a brief policy statement by Randy & CO preclude the need for a UAC?

I guess, I've always thought so! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Good point. I've considered it, and I guess my experience has been that if we think of FT as one of the "divisions" for which Randy is responsible, he is certainly the ultimate authority for any policy, but in light of his other "divisions" (other responsibilites - e.g. making real money http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif ), it is difficult for him to monitor and respond as he might want. However, the advent of a UAC would provide a more efficient method of communicating issues and recommendations in a timely and summary fashion. This will make it much easier for him to repond in a timely fashion.

In MY opinion - no, I do not believe that a policy brief from Randy would provide the sustained benefits that a UAC could provide.

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

SVPII,

The only other thing I can see... is the advisory council.

I would recommend that members not be able to serve more than one term... or else it will just become another clique of the oldtimers (at least the ones who have not run away!). We need to ensure that "younger" blood is also represented.

Again, just a thought.

Sure I will have more... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

William

Personally, I agree. I did state that successive terms was a TBD item. Another alternative would be to structure the UAC rather like a corporate Board of Directors - half have a one year term, half have a two year term. That would create a scenario where half the council is always experienced.