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.

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

svpii, thank you for starting this thread and doing a great job with this proposal.

Re: Jailer's discussion for duties of UAC, I see the items 1 and sometimes 2 as being primary duties of Moderators, and not a committee. Actions on these things are required much quicker than can be handled by committee. The committee perhaps could be the moderator of the Hot Debate forum, and could move back any thread from the hot debate forum to the original, ie. acting as a de-facto appeal board for those who disagree with the moderator.
Re: thread locking, we on FT have been very lucky that only rarely have things been necessary to lock, on other boards it isnt so, sometimes some idiot posts threads that are pure vulgarity/violence/crap with no actual content purpose other than to swear at everyone on the forum, things like this must be blocked immediately by moderators with powers to close threads, and move them to perhaps a trash bin thread, there, after 24 hours, the thread would be deleted absent someone objecting to its closure/deletion (someone besides the Original Poster). Also, because of the above, moderators should have power to suspend immediately any poster for 24 hours, sufficient time for the committee (or perhaps subcommittee) to life ban - subject to reversal by Randy. Obviously, there are standards to be set before a moderator or the committee would so act.
Normal users, ie those around more than a few hours would not be treated as drastically, this is only for the persons coming to spam/vandalize/etc the FT community, and I would add, I don't think this has ever happened, in my mind no thread I have read up to today would qualify for such treatment, so please dont think this is utter censorship... I just cant give a good example because it would all appear as **** **** **** **** etc. But, I have seen boards were posters posted exclusively 4 letter words just to inflame those on the boards, and I pray this never happens here.

Other than this exceptional event, moderators should never lock threads, but move them to the hot debate room (perhaps 2 moderators would be req'd to agree to lockdown threads even in my example above).

I like the Hot Debate Board, title and all. I like making sure there is a link in the original thread to the hot debate thread.

I also agree with the KISS principle. As such I think the 25 person comittee is perhaps big but, being this is not only an internet community but also one that travels a lot, it might need to be that big in order to get enough people to make a quorum, which should be perhaps 9-12? How about 66% for instituting suspension or rocommending expulsion.
I thank everyone for their thoughts on this thread and the commitment it shows to keep this commumity from falling into utter chaos and self destructing. Jailer Said: "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). " --- HE is right, we may be a motley group gathering from all parts of the world, but we have a common interest in miles, travels, and the things that make miles and travel important to us. Let's try to get a system in place to handle the "problems" of late, and then get back as quickly as possible to that which brought each of us here in the first place.

cheers.
TG

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

Thanks TG for taking the time to contribute your thoughts. After reading Jailer's comments, I came to the same conclusion as did you regarding the size of the UAC - given our travel schedules, a size that is bigger than what might otherwise be desirable might be required in order to get a quorum.

I also agree that the specific limits and responsibilities of moderators will have to be fully fleshed out. This will obviously require Randy's input, so a lot of the "how" specifics I believe are best tabled until we have the benefit of his input on the "what". That doesn't mean we don't make our personal concepts known in this thread - but they will end up as a separate schedule reflecting member input regarding methods when the proposal is in its final form.

Thanks again. I can't help but believe that others have input they're hoping someone else will deliver. I would like to avoid a situation where valid points go unaddressed, so please take the time to contribute to this proposal by Wednesday morning.

jailer: I suggest you read birdstrike's extremely well written thread at http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...L/000324.html.

doc: No one is ever going to be able to come up with a complete set of guidelines for behavior that governs every single circumstance or situation that might happen here. Moderators will have to make a judgement call occasionally. That's why it's important for moderators to have a private area where they can discuss issues among themselves. Moderation tends to promote self government by consensus, and there will be decisions you may well disagree with.

Just as in the US, where we are governed by the rule of law, the body of laws can't cover every single situation. There are decisions on interpreting laws that I personally disagree with. But overall, the system works and it's a decent place to live.

I think it's important that the moderators come from the community. I believe you have stated elsewhere to the effect that it's a big job and not enough people will want to do it. We've never put out a call for moderators that I know of, so you don't know that. I specifically think they should not come from Randy's company, as that would throw too large of an onus on him. Suppose he hired a couple of full time moderators; would his cost of doing business in having a board be justified any more? They should definitely be from the community, people who are interested in the welfare of this board, and who would be willing to take a half an hour to an hour a day to look after it, and to work in consultation with Randy's people. I want to make Randy's life easier by filtering a lot of the griping before it ever gets to him.

I support the idea of moderators at leat for the board Buzz, General TravelTalk and the
FlyerTalk Community.
One point to think about is time zones, as an
European I would not like to wait 8-16 hours for my postings to show, so I think there
should be a group a moderators at different
locations, enablin near realtime moderation.

As stated earlier the automatic PC-language
feature at most amuses me, but I think it is
unnecessary. As PC is mostly an NA thing, but this is an international board.

Peter-42, I don't think any envisions a review of posts BEFORE they're are posted..

svpii - I could only even contemplate moderators who act after a posting has been made (and then grudgingly), but in many moderated usenet groups, posts are pre-moderated (i.e. before they are displayed). I assume that is what Peter was referring to.

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

Kudos to you for trying to find a solution to FT's ills.

For the most part I have ignored most of the more heated threads, so perhaps I'm missing something ... but my question is this ... have the actual problems been identified (and I'm not referring to a person here) and does your proposal address them?

From what I have read it seems many people find the problems to be:

a) inaccurate posts
b) abundance of posts by individual poster
c) boasting within posts
d) repeating what the poster's already posted

It seems to me, your suggestions perhaps address issues that are not related to the problems many are complaining about, but I could certainly be wrong.

Would a moderator prevent someone from patting him/herself on the back? Would he limit the amount of times someone could post a day? Would moderators have to know the details of each promotion/offer/mileage program to make sure posters are providing accurate information?

While vulgarity and attacks can clearly be controlled and stopped, lack of manners cannot. And if the only thing we can really eliminate is attacks, it seems there might be a less complicated solution.

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

"...Moderators will have to make a judgement call occasionally..."

Absolutely, just as laws need to be interpreted! Yet, we should surely have the guidelines/laws first, and then also the wise folks willing to interpret and enforce them, IMHO!

"...That's why it's important for moderators to have a private area where they can discuss issues among themselves. Moderation tends to promote self government by consensus, and there will be decisions you may well disagree with..."

Yes, perhaps so! I trust your judgement in general!

"...I believe you have stated elsewhere to the effect that it's a big job and not enough people will want to do it..."

Yes and no!

Yes, it's a really big job! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/eek.gif

Perhaps a bit too big for me! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

No, I never stated that not enough others would be willing! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

I just prefer personally to be as totally impartial and even somewhat detached from the "governing" and as a moderator, if I'd ever have benn asked and were to have accepted, it would be rather difficult and perhaps impossible! FWIW, I don't want to be a police officer, a judge, or president either! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Moderator(s) should be extremely careful to only address real problems! There must be great care to insure NO personal bias.

Who will they be? How are these moderators to be selected? What do they do? What are the specifically stated guidelines? What would Randy & Co do, if anything, in realtion to them?

Again, this can sometimes be an extraordinarily tough job at times, just as it will likely prove to be effortless and even boring at other times. An impartial, effective moderator is a fine idea, but no moderator is still a better choice than a less than objective, ineffective one.

"...and to work in consultation with Randy's people. I want to make Randy's life easier by filtering a lot of the griping before it ever gets to him..."

We may well actually agree on this more than we disagree. I felt that if there are to be moderators that they should perhaps be on Randy's staff and be truly "official". That they have clout and are respected is the issue. I too would love to help ease things for Randy! yet, I don't know about just a half hour or so per day! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Recall what Randy had said earlier regarding moderators:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000324.html

Letiole - Thanks for your input. I think DGolds said it best in his most recent post on this thread - No one is ever going to be able to come up with a complete set of guidelines for behavior that governs every single circumstance or situation that might happen here. As you state, it is an unrealistic task to govern manners. While this proposal would not fairly be characterized as a "baby step", I believe it is a first step. I would hope that w/ some reinforced structure and a prevailing atmosphere of refocusing on our strengths - information and community - perhaps some of these ills will be secondarily mitigated. However, that is something that cannot be addressed in policy or procedure very efficiently.

Consider every reasonably controlled environment you've ever been in - schools, corporations, girl scouts, the military, and even the church. Even in those environments where principles of behavior are usually well articulated, there are always individuals who are into self-aggrandizement, constant reiteration of their own comments, and who apparently believe that volume of comment is a substitute for substance of comment. We grin and bear them there and I believe we can do so here http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.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.

Is this a satisfactory response to your questions?

Why is this discussion taking place in the abstract?

A little competition can be a very good thing! Do you think UA1ks would be enjoying SWUs if AA did not offer similar?

I'd love to see a moderated alternative to FT. Maybe it would be better. Maybe it would be worse. Most likely, as with FF programs, some would gravitate toward one while others would prefer the other. But IME, a little competition never hurt any venture.