Although most of FlyerTalk provides invaluable information, the occasional topics that devolve into unproductive, and occasionally nasty, discussions don’t serve the community. Currently, there’s a choice only of letting the discussions continue or locking the topic. To help reduce the clatter from those topics without imposing a lockdown, I’d propose a “One More Shot” policy for those topics that become more contentious than useful. Here’s how it would work:

When a forum moderator finds that a topic is becoming more of a battlefield than a useful discussion, the moderator would mark the topic as “One More Shot,” by posting a response and using a (currently non-existent, as far as I know) One More Shot icon. Once a topic is labeled OMS, each FT member may post one and only one response. No one is shut off from saying their piece, but anyone who contributes would know that they have one, and only one, chance to express their views.

There would need to be some ground rules of course: no fair to start another topic that’s essentially the same thing, no fair to edit an existing post by adding new content, and probably other stuff. And of course the FT rules and TOS would apply just as much to OMS topics as to any other.

(And if this has been proposed previously, I bow my sorry head in shame.)

I think this is a recipe for disaster. As much as I'd like to believe that we're among a group of mature people who can express their views rationally and appropriately, I'm afraid a OMS policy would lead to people getting in "one last dig" and creating a moderation nightmare.

Moderators fire a warning shot when topics get out of hand. It is NOT an invitation to post one final thought about the deviation, it is a clear signal that says "get back on topic or this thread will be closed".

I've said it before and I'll say it again.

Closing threads because some posters violate the TOS makes no sense whatsoever. All it does is make it easy for people to shut down legitimate discussion.

I'd much rather see the moderators delete offending posts (and suspend trouble-makers) than constantly closing threads.

I personally believe Moderators are doing a great job....

While I may disagree with some of their decisions, it is their job and not mine to take those decisions. (I try to email them my thoughts... they can do what they want with them.)

In some ways, flagging a thread with a OMS icon would just bring attention to it.

I will say again: the way to deal with people who "hijack" threads and violate TOS is to timeout them or ban them. I would advocate Moderators having expanded rights in this area... currently only Randy can do it and it sometimes takes time for him to get to it based on his busy schedule. Punishing the masses by closing a thread because of one or two people is not the way to deal with people who cannot play nicely.

William

Good idea. Is this even possible?

The AA moderators (777Brit and Plato90s) have done it within the past several weeks. Offensive and off-topic posts were simply deleted by the moderators with a warning to stay on topic or face the music.

It certainly prevents the troublemakers from shutting down everyone else's conversation.

Having been the target of biased moderation on a different BB, I would advise AGAINST moderators deleting posts.

If a thread is otherwise interesting and useful to the community, I'm reluctant to lock the thread in its entirety. Sometimes it's better to blank out part of the comments, and leave the rest in place. Sometimes, the content is deleted but the post itself is still there. Sometimes, the entire post is deleted (especialy the hit-and-run ones).

You'll just have to trust that Randy has good judgment in choosing the moderators he believes would do the right thing for FlyerTalk.

Yes it is. I've used it in Coupon Connection when a poster, typically a newbie who thinks he's found eBay east or who has been trained in the gentle arts of usenet decides to do cash-brokering offers and refuses to edit.

Yes. I have used it to delete a number of contentious posts on Trip Reports that I felt violated the TOS. Apart from ozstamps (who didn't even have a post deleted!), nobody else complained.

[This message has been edited by B747-437B (edited November 11, 2003).]