Looking forward to your AA 20-20 ideas!

I think it's pretty clear who has disappeared and who hasn't... at least the noise ratio in some well heeled forums has dropped a huge amount in the past 2 or so weeks (thank god!). I respect Randy's stance - we don't need to know all the details of what goes on, and Randy is also being fair to the posters concerned. And remember folks, it *is* Randy's board so his right to do as he pleases with it, but the best thing is to be fair and consistent, and so if Randy gave us a public comment about one person, he'd have to do it for all and it just doesn't warrant it. Besides, as I got a private email from at least one FT'er confirming one recent banning/timeout, the news still finds ways to leak out.

Keep up the great work Randy, and it is a pity your attention needs to be dragged away from the important stuff for this administrivia, but I guess that is life in any kind of community. In a former life I had to be a "cop" of sorts, and it was not something I enjoyed doing one little bit, and I suspect Randy feels the same.


------------------
RichardMEL, UA 1K
A Star Alliance Member.

I agree with Randy and hope this board is never "Survivor" but some of the subject posters are definately "The Weakest Link...Goodbye".

I tend to agree with CactusPete. One of the reasons why we should and do make trials public in the U.S. and most countries is so that the general population can have some assurance that justice is being served. We'd all be horrified at the idea of secret trials.

Having said that, of course this is Randy's board and is not a democracy. And I sincerely appreciate that Randy's time is limited and he certainly would not have time to provide the equivalent of a "trial"--nor should he be obligated to do so. However, the analogy would be that making information public, even some limited information, helps provide members some confidence that the board is being run fairly.

FWIW, except for a public pronouncement of who and why, it was, and is still is essentially public if you read the threads - just not advertised, and admittedly perhaps in small print, as it perhaps should be! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

For sanctions to have any general deterrent value, the offender, offense, and punishment must be publicized.

Doc, your post is a tad confusing, but is this what you were referring to: http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum75/HTML/000019.html ?

And why was this one made "public", whereas others were not?

only very very few FlyerTalkers (will ever) know the identity of that poster you refer to with your link.

I don't think that NAMING (banned members) helps - my (limited to this board) experience seems to show the contrary.

Rudi, I was not trying to re-open the debate. I mader my position clear earlier in this thread. My question was, if the official FT position is that bannings/suspensions are not to be made "public", then why the disparate treatment of this particular poster/thread? (BTW, I am not questioning whether it should have been deleted.)

"...is this what you were referring to:..."

No!

I noted that one could likely determine the identitie(s) if they were so inclined, by simply reading the past record as it now stands!

Since our host has been and is now quite clear in not wishing to post on this particular matter, I'll continue to respect those wishes and won't comment further! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Needless to say, while I do NOT at all miss the distractions and hassles, I truly wish that the "banishment" had NOT happened and importantly will NOT happen in the future either! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Miles, points and travel for me! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif