If you are concerned about bandwidth, then you should be measuring number of words written by someone and not number of posts. So what is the "sensible" limit?

I'm in agreement with NJDavid. Good idea.

I"m with NJDavid too. But maybe for those who cannot provide full account information they can READ the airline, hotel and car rental posts but CANNOT Post. The reason as David explained and what is my concern: the growth of this board is going to bring on silly people whose whole purpose in life is to dump spam and other junk on forums like this. That's what I'm worried about..

Plus now that we have several of the frequent travel companies actually responding to us on this forum we should treat them with the respect for the time they are taking to help us.

I hope this all makes sense becuase it's 2 am saturday morning NYC time and I had to make my points known.

With all respect to David, I don't agree with the suggestion. Let's not treat the program representatives on board like children. If they are truly serious about wanting to provide first-rate service, they can navigate the amount of noise they're currently encountering on FlyerTalk. The problem isn't chronic. If it BECOMES chronic, then David's suggestion becomes more urgent.

A retreat by the programs at this point would be unwarranted. As Quantam Leap very nicely pointed out, the signal-to-noise ratio remains excellent. We're probably lucky to have gotten this far without a flareup sooner. I guess I just don't want to see an overreaction to an admittedly troublesome, but weak, trend.

I'm of the opinion that program representatives have begun to pay attention to FlyerTalk because of the quality of discussion on these boards. If they want out, there will ALWAYS be something they can point to to justify retreat. It's a test of their character to remain on board. They certainly get enough affirmation for being responsive, maybe even too much.

I know that David stated that his suggestion was not meant to single anyone out, and that's quite decorous of him to say. But the impetus for his post had to come from the recent fiasco on the Northwest forum initiated by doc. I'd ask doc for a clear statement to the effect that he won't try something like that again, but I don't think it would satisfy everyone, because so much trust has been lost. And it wouldn't insure that someone else wouldn't come along and try the same thing.

But as long as there ISN'T a proliferation of doc-like cases, FlyerTalk isn't threatened. So let's just hope we don't have any more. It would be a full-time job for someone to closely monitor the member information of all new FlyerTalkers (there are LOTS of us now, and more each day). It can be done, and to save the board I wouls suspect we'd probably do it. But shouldn't that be done as a last resort, rather than as a preventative measure?

The choice is: become an exclusionary club of well-informed travelers whose comments may or may not have significance to anyone outside the parameters of inclusion, or remain an open community that embodies the virtues of free exchange and which risks the difficulties that sometimes come with it.

We have to believe that program representatives don't need to be coddled to be participants on FlyerTalk. As it stands, they should WANT to be here. The quality of this forum demands it. And part of that quality derives from the openness of FlyerTalk.

I'm glad for the discussion.




[This message has been edited by bryan at webflyer (edited 07-24-1999).]

Stop you're both right. I actually agree with NJDavid but I prefer Brian's approach (i.e minimal regulation is my preferred approach). Unfortunately, in the real world this does not work and that is why we have rules, laws etc. We do (all of us at times) tend to act like children (myself included). If there is some accountability (required address etc.) it keeps the child within us to a reasonable dull roar. I love the way we can have fun on this board occasionally and just let loose (OMNI) but keep a lot of serious discussion/good info in the specific airline etc. threads. I do value FT. I have looked in on various chat boards etc but get turned off by both the style and content. FT is the only area I keep coming back to and provides real value to me.

I know it (requiring e-mail or address etc.) would place a burden on FT since there would be some expectation of "policing" but I think the very need to specifically identify yourself to FT in a confidential way would make any policing a very rare (if ever needed) event.

Good discussion.

Sounds to me like almost all respondents have well considered and useful comments. But doesn't it really come down to this: civility, meaning good behaviour; politeness, meaning consideration for others; and, finally, courage, meaning a willingness to be known for and by what one says (or writes). Unsigned letters, anonymous phone calls? Nah! Not here.



As for "doc" or anyone else who posts often, where's the beef? (W. Mondale). If that is the way they choose to use their time, let's be friendly; after all, they may be lonely.

And their postings neither violate the afore-

mentioned standards of good behaviour or harm anyone. I find very valuable information from frequent posters, Rudi, for example, who has been quite helpful to me, even after my

fifty one years of flying to and from Germany

and Catman who amuses me at times when I really need a bit of amusement.



Finally, some of us should just admit that we are travel mileage junkies and like to talk about it. As I said, where's the beef?

Did I miss something? Are we in danger of running out of bandwidth? If so, then posts should be limited. If not, whats the big deal? For one, I don't mind showing my email address but I understand why others might prefer not to.
I vote for Bryans "open community' approach.

Okay, I'll put in my two cents worth. As to legal liability, I don't think that is a reall concern. The federal laws make it pretty clear now that an internet site like this which doesn't publish, but merely is the medium, doesn't have liability. Unfortunately, that doesn't mean that they won't be sued and have to spend money on legal fees to extricate themselves. As to the concern about industry reps. reading the boards and being pissed off by a spammer, I think the recent NW incident is instructive. When MJW asked someone to e-mail her, he did, and she responded indicating that he indeed had problems with NW. Therefore, he was a real person. I assume that any industry person in the future will react the same way. If the person isn't real, they won't respond, and the industry person will realize it and ignore the drivel from the person on the board.
I am not defending people who do this, but merely suggesting that it's not as serious a concern as others seem to think it is. I don't see the need for further restrictions myself at this time.

Djlawman

For what it's worth , I essentially agree with NJDavid, particularly with the advent of bonuses for signup and posting. I actually believe FT would grow and spread very quickly without this new program, as it has already been doing.

As I've said in the past, you could also have a separate section where only FT's who reveal certain kinds of info like email are permitted. Again we are presently not so anonymous as many FT's seem to believe. An email address posted does make you potentially more "vulnerable." And spammers apparently routinely puruse boards like these for good email addresses. Some people simply prefer to be more private.

kyklin- I appreiate your criticism and will make a special concerted effort to reduce the number of my posts!

bryan- I essentially agree with you. However, the recent fiasco actually seemed to stem initially from what I thought was an insult by arturo. This bell was "unrung" but grew rapidly out of hand before it was.

Personally I never want to knowingly or unknowingly break any rules or violate any trusts. I appreciate your concerns. Yet, I'm not sure why family members who participated in the NW thread alluded to, (two of which are/have been active Elite members of NW Worldperks), taking a position in agreement with me without explicitly stating their relationship, appears to be such a serious violation. I naively thought that everyone was entitled to an individual opinion and a right to express it somewhat anononymously. These people did supply the proper information to FT and they made no effort to conceal their identity. Friends on this board routinely line up on one side or the other of a given issue without specifically announcing that they are supportive "friends". Frankly, I sometimes feel I can get more support from friends and/or colleagues than from my family- even my immediate family! Yet, clearly it is best avoided and I wish I had avoided it. Let me apologize again. Nonetheless, in any case, I am surely able to say that there will not be any "doc-like" incidents from me.

If family or friends or cyber-acquaintances need to be identified as such, may I simply request that this be stated as policy. Various people have participated in various incarnations on the FT boards for a multitude of reasons. I do not know whether that is "acceptable" or not. Is it?

Members of families, whether they be mine or someone else's, should be allowed to participate and express their opinions, I think. It seems to me that they do not always agree. Just witness the number of divorces we have and biblically speaking, the way Cain and Abel got along!

I agree with ranles that revealing the number of postings does little if anything to enhance the value of the board and can cause aggravation as well.

Whatever the policy is, I'll live with it and obey it to the letter. Thanks.

doc - I will agree with Bryan on this. I think that any rules notwithstanding, if there is a group of close friends or relatives or household who are posting (seemingly in concert), they need to very explicitly make it clear at the very outset. Otherwise, their own credibility is shattered when later someone else points it out.

I think that the bandwidth issue is separate and should be discussed separately. Just a short while ago, people were being requested to post more (rather than a one liner). I think that as more people start posting, one would have to start getting more selective about what to read and what not to read. So some thought should be put to allow some kind of filters. Also one should be very careful about allowing travel agents or other commercial interests - IMO once the commercial posts start, things start to go downhill.

Pgupta011 - I totally agree with you ...

Email addresses were provided for the sole purpose if someone wants to contact that poster.

However, from experience, I now just hope that I do not receive any hate mail. As it is, some Webflyers have decided to email me and question the legitmacy of my flights and if I got comped for my lounge privileges. It was almost like an interrogation. But in the end I decided to post my reasons in "Who We Are 2".

I don't we are getting weirdos who have the time to read every thread and comment on each one. But I do agree that some form of policing is required.

I hope that I have not touched off any sensitivities here.

What policing and who will do the policing? Please be specific.

------------------

In view of seemingly recurring questions regarding the "appropriate" level of participation expected or requested by FT'ers, I bring this thread forward!

If we have a broadband problem, please let us know, Randy, so that we may ALL respond accordingly!

BTW- FWIW, MWJ, the NWA rep NEVER had an Email address showing! I hope that she was NOT to be ignored as if she did not exist!

I would like to humbly disagree with NJDavid's proposal. Rather than get into a long post, I've edited it down:

1) I don't believe Flyertalk is secure enough to manage my personal information
2) I think demographic information can be faked as easily as free email addresses make people think my name is 'Max'
3) An ignore feature would be much more effective for individual tastes
4) Demographic information would lower the new blood that joins the board, some bad, some good.

Just my $.02