Bannings/Suspensions????
 

I have seen implied but have myself read no evidence that Randy has been banning/suspending posters. Just wondering if this is true and if so, who, how long and for which specific transgressions.

I will claim that I only care so that I can know for myself exactly where the line is, but I also have a morbid curiosity over the issue.

The news is true and has been for some time, though I've tried to be professional about it and not broadcast individual names and actions. There have been several posts lately that seem to indicate this is fairly unknown and that I am not doing anything. Factly not true. There are currently 5 members serving 'timeouts' from FlyerTalk - where their user names are disabled. There have been 3 other members who have served their timeouts over the last month. Actions taken have been the result of the use of inapropriate language and flaming. These two items are the focus of our efforts to moderate in the background without anyone feeling overshadowed. As in sports, anyone who flames and flames back is subject to a possible timeout. The first timeout is for one week. The second time out is for one month and there is no third timeout. All who have served timeouts so far (except for one person) have been more than reasonable of the penalty and have told me they respect the decisions and actions.

I am preparing a "State of the Union" address to all members alerting them to formal actions that can be taken by FlyerTalk, and that should be emailed to all current members shortly.

It is not my goal to become a firmly entrenched police person on this board. However, I am concerned that some members have not been able to stay on topic and frankly, I enjoy the information far too much to allow this to be spoiled for the many who do continue to enjoy the contributions and takeaways.

I have also spent the last month addressing the issue of multiple user names. Because of the large number of members that this effects, it will take some time to resolve, but it is being addressed (some 900+ members with roughly 2814 total multiple user names).

However, I will not name those being addressed for any action and why actions were taken and prefer to operate in the background. Why? It's simple. There are tens of thousands of members registered here on FT (and hundreds of thousands who lurk each month) and only a handful of people are our problem childs. I will not be the one that crys'Fire' in the theatre when only two people light a cigarete.

I would ask that this community continue to stay on topic and each share in their roles as members to give and take.

I hope I have answered your question of what is being done. As for the line: don't flame or be drawn into reacting to a flame and we will never have a 'chat'. Best advice of all: Talk travel and remember what your Mother taught you - play nice with others.

Randy-

Thanks for choosing to articulate your position on this pesky issue. Hope it helps.

Thanks Randy...

Look forward to your "State of Flyertalk" presentation.

William

Thank you Randy...

Again, as always, thank you very much for the provision of these boards and for your unending efforts to maintain FT! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Thanks for the effort, Randy. Just one thought. Publically "outing" the culprits might (1) serve as a deterrent and (2) give the rest of us confidence that the problem posters are being addressed.

I would also offer that publicly outing who's been suspended might not be a bad idea. If people want privacy, then they should behave.

At a club I belong to it is posted by the coat check who is behind in their dues/charges. It does not take long for those people to get their check book out and their names off that list! ...

How about a reasonable compromise.

'Outing' after the 2nd time out.

This gives a poster the benefit of the doubt as a 1st time offender, but cracks down on repeat offenders.

Sinnce credibility (or perceptions thereof) are a key determinant to how effective posters can be, 'outing' seems to be a credible deterrent.

Obviously, goal is prevention, not punishment.

Good luck.

it's amazing to me how much baseball, consciously or unconsiously, seems to permeate the American psyche...

three strikes, your out http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Randy,

As a long time time "lurker," and infrequent poster to FT, I came this folder for the first time to specifically complain about the recent rash of trash talking on the boards. I am happy to see that the situation has already been addressed.

IMHO - some of these people should be banned.

Thanks again for all you do

hreamer

Thank you, Randy. To paraphrase Goethe, "More light {. . . and less heat}"

Someone just emailed me, referring me to Randy's post above, and berated me for not 'copping it sweet'. For the public record I agreed entirely with Randy's actions, posted here a week or more back that I agreed, and advised Randy by return I had no problem at all with any of it, and apologised that these flames etc had intruded into his busy schedule. So whomever "argued the toss" about his decision, whether this week or last, it was NOT oztamps. And also for the record Randy took that action before a couple of well known FT'ers said goodbye, which I do not feel is widely understood or appreciated by most.

I feel "naming names" is not anyone else's business here. A quick "search" by user name for last 5 days in their "home" Forum will readily pinpoint predictable absentees to the overly curious. It is hardly rocket science.

This figure from Randy really amazes me: "some 900+ members with roughly 2814 total multiple user names". None of those were or are me, so on top of the seperate email address user names that myself and a number of others fessed up to in 2000, the problem is far larger than anyone here ever imagined I suspect.

------------------
~ Glen ~

[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited 03-13-2001).]

Randy, a very nice, informative post.

I only have one request: Make sure that ALL FTers get your State of FT address. I've yet to receive any of the to-all-FT e-mails.

Thanks,
Matt

motnot: In one's FT profile, there is a check box for "Allow administrators to send you e-mail". This option must be enabled in order to receive these "to all FTers" messages. In any case I believe that these e-mails are also posted as official FT announcements (or at least they should be!).

FewMiles..

------------------
FlyerTalkers' Resources on the Web: http://home.webflyer.com/fewmiles/
Unofficial Guide to AAdvantage: http://home.webflyer.com/fewmiles/AA/
oneworld comparison chart 2001: coming soon

[edited for spelling mistakes]

[This message has been edited by FewMiles (edited 03-14-2001).]

This is a great start. We need to know who is being 'timed-out' so that we can all judge the effectiveness of this procedure, please.

As far as the muliple handles are concerned, we even more need to know who has been posting as whom. Not all confessions in 2000 contained all the usernames used. Really until this is the case, the multiple handles problem will not go away.

Anyway, a great start as I say.

IMO, Randy needs to know this information, we dont

Thanks Randy! I very much appreciate your filling us in on this and look forward to the State of the Union email. I too value Flyertalk way too much to want to either leave or put up with all the crap flying around. Thank you for taking action, and for keeping us informed of what action you have taken.

Trojanhorse - my motivation for this request is to evaluate the postings of people using multiple handles. It was not to enjoy their dicomfort.

Not that anyone suspected this, but given this mess, and oz's proposed way of checking, my abscence from FT was due to my changing jobs and losing my password, and finally having it reset. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

It's a shame that the mudslinging has gotten to the point where anyone would need to be suspended or banned.

Well, it happens. Web sites come and go, but if they continue, you can bet that they will grow,a nd that they will "evolve"..however much it pains us, and however much we want to look back on whhat once was...

I do think, though, that the FlyerTalk of 1998 was much less for content and helpful suggestion, than the FlyerTalk of 2001.

When a community gets large, the probloems multiply. That does not mean, however, that the larger community is less worthy. Often, it is more worthy, whatever the pain.

Bringing this thread forward, as there is more innuendo re: recent banishments (see for example http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/004572.html - - I did not want to spoil Kokonutz's thread). I still feel that a public announcement/acknowledgment would be beneficial, as noted above. Perhaps it would also entice some FT alumni to rejoin the party.

{Edited for lame UBB coding.}

[This message has been edited by cactuspete (edited 05-16-2001).]

If I were to read this correctly, you are suggesting that public announcements be a standard for any banishment?

Sorry, I have to disagree. The purpose of any action taken by others or myself with regard to a members posting privileges is strictly that - between that member and myself. I don't and can't agree that it becomes a public record, to become fodder for idle comments. When FlyerTalk came about, I pledged to protect the privacy of all members, their actions and their behavior on this board. I have received several other such emails from members suggesting the same - make it public and it will bring other members back. If any actions have been taken up with members, it's of a matter regarding their, and only their activity on FlyerTalk, it has no relationship with other members or members not posting as frequently. FlyerTalk is not "Survivor". FlyerTalk is not Salem, MA (site of infamous witch hangings). FlyerTalk is not a PR mechanism. FlyerTalk is not the National Enquirer. FlyerTalk is an idea where you can exchange the best of information that you know about the topic of travel and frequent flyer programs and to be free of disruptive posts that interfere with the exchange of this information. Along the way it is also community. FlyerTalk shall not be a community, which makes "examples" of those who have passed along this way. Yes, FlyerTalk is a "no politics" zone on this matter. I hope this lets you know where I stand on this matter and welcome any and all comments either here or more appropriately via email.

Randy, I understand your position on this issue, although I don't agree with it (which is part of the point here - - we can have a reasonable discussion over something without degenerating into personal attacks). Just a quick obsevation or two. Whereas the action that you may or may not take regarding a member's posting privileges is indeed between you and that poster, the action that led up to your action necessarily was between the offender and another FT member. In any civilized community, a "police presence" is necessary in order to maintain the pulic's confidence in the system. If you don't follow the rules, then the consequence is forfeiture of some of your rights. I am not calling for the offender to be burned at the stake on the WebFlyer home page. But I do think that a simple post at the end of a flame war thread ("Mr. XXX, you have violated FT rules and are hereby suspended/banished") would do the trick, by alerting the "victims". And there is at least some precedent for a public "outing", as I can recall at least a few instances recently in which some offensive posters were publicly banished.

On another note - - have you noticed all of the great ideas popping up on the AA board in connection with the 20 Partners - 20,000 Mile promo?

That says it well. Thanks, Randy.

One thing comes to mind. Got it from the Navy and it is very true.

Praise in public, reprimend in private!

Can't we allll......just get a l o n g? http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Test, to see if it will bring forward the missing posts.

It worked.

[This message has been edited by cactuspete (edited 05-17-2001).]

Randy,

Thanks as always for taking the high road.
This is your (our) board. And I trust you to do what's right.
My mother always taught me to mind my own business. I try to.
Flyertalk will go on as long as new people are finding it. And many of the newbees will become assets.
And one more thing, Today...is the old days. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

CactusPete: i hope people look at this issue and see how it's done. I absolutely respect the fact you disagree with me on this issue and are not afraid to do so. You remain a valuable member of this board. But no where have we picked on each other in a manner outside of the issue. I still stand by my feelings on this matter and will always try to keep an open mind. I simply want to assure all members of this board by my actions here and hopefully elsewhere that their privacy and rights to opinions are always held in high regard by me. Keep in mind this one very, very important fact. My guess is that 95% or more of the members of this board would have no idea what the sanctions are all about. Either they are new members or members who pretty much have stayed to their forum interests. I worry that by a public shaming we then impose this on members who really have no interest other than the topics at hand. As for making sure that members know we have a renewed interest in supporting the board, I'm going to let our actions speak for themselves. I'm not running for office and don't need to run on a platform featuring capital punishment..

Now, on the issue of the creative ideas coming from the AA board in regard to the 20th Anniversary......proof enough that the best and brightest still choose FlyerTalk. I've got a list of ideas from the threads and later next week will contribute my own ideas as I'm banking on that 20,000 miles, just liked i banked the Northwest 10,000 miles.

Thanks for the dialog cactuspete, it does help me to take a timeout for myself sometime and rethink decisions I have made.

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