I like JS's post, and it helps clarifies my own observation. My understanding is that the way moderation works on Usenet, in a moderated newsgroup, each post must be approved by a moderator. That's not at all what I would have in mind when I advocate moderation. Other boards/lists that I have experience with have moderators that work in the background to respond to posts/e-mails that don't conform to the board's/list's FAQ.

What I would envision is something like this. Each forum would have a moderator. There would also be a private board where the moderators would consult with one another. When an issue came up, a moderator could discuss it with the other moderators to determine whether action was warranted, then bring it up to the individual(s) involved privately (via e-mail). In most cases, issues would be dealt with discretely to avoid embarrassment to anyone. If an issue were not able to be resolved by the moderator, (s)he could raise it to the system administrator, who would have to decide what, if anything, to do.

In short, there should be as little interference as possible, and as little controversy. The idea is to let people stay on topic, which for us is points and miles and all things related (not including OMNI).

cblaisd: You might find the discussion in http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum73/HTML/000096.html of interest. Even though I personally disagree, I would have to say, after floating the idea, that the community does not even want to allow the originator of a discussion thread to delete the thread in its entirety, much less delete individual posts from it.

(Edited to correct spelling errors.)

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

OK, I'll say that in my experience, moderation doesn't work. My Usenet days are many years in the past (I've been on the Internet since the 80's), but there were horrible flame wars based on moderation and people who disagreed with the moderators. Other BBS's like this one have suffered too.

Time has taught many of us to simply ignore problem posters. The more you respond to their posts, the more they post. If you ignore them, they eventually go away. This is pretty much of a truism on the Internet.

If you are lucky enough to have a very good moderator, then you will think moderated boards are great. That is until you get a bad one or you personally disagree with a moderator. If it's just one person against a moderator, you are out of luck.

As for bozo filters, my mind does that for me automatically. I only read what I wish to read.

This whole debate sounds like people complaining about the declining quality and moralism of TV shows. It's an ongoing debate that incites many. But the simple argument that has always preserved the right to televise lousy programs is that if you don't like it, change the channel.


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

I actually agree generally with both dgolds and stimpy! Either way would be just fine - just as long as there are some clear rules and sensible guidelines for ALL of us to abide by!

Noting the current post in "THE BUZZ" with a real "catchy" title, one may wonder if it is time for a reconsideration of a detailed FAQ offering?

Once again, those who have been around FT awhile will no doubt recall that I too had asked about this in the past many times. Maybe even far too many times!

"Once again if you'll permit me to ask, why not have some detailed rules explicitly stated up front? Why not have a verifiable, enforceable 'signed' agreement by all users to abide by these rules to retain participatory rights? Even within a broad self-regulating community of the type Randy & Co surely prefers, this would seemingly be most helpful and quite workable.

-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!

Thanks again to all the FT folks for their continued efforts to make the FT boards work so well for ALL of us! It's very much appreciated!"


Now we know that absolutely NO multiple handles are permitted thanks to a very strong statement from our host(s)!

Rgerading the other ppoints, however, time is indeed passing and there is, I believe, a real cost to ALL of us!

Randy has stated that he is acting now to begin to deal with these matters and I am VERY confident that he will continue! Hopefully we'll ALL be patient and subsequently be soon rewarded! VERY soon!

Perhaps the impending migration to the new sotware will address these concerns?

In any case, thanks very much once again everyone!