Punki-
I've taken the posts offline for me to get a chance to review. While a few of you may grouse at that, let's remember that the posts were done under a false user account and you surely can't deny that is not in the spirit of the TOS of FlyerTalk.

As for the posts, they are true comments made by moderators on FlyerTalk. I nor the moderators would deny that. But the way in which they have been presented are not a true and accurate reflection of the dialog. Also, there is not a single comment made by a moderator that was re-posted that has not been commented in almost the exact same way by other members of FlyerTalk, either on a post or in personal emails to me. I have always asked members AND moderators to give me your thoughts. I personally think, and you may disagree, that the most valuable asset I have to make decisions on behalf of all FlyerTalkers, is to listen to both sides of an argument or position. Let's take for instance ScottC's comments about ozstamps. ScottC's comments were likely somewhere between the 500th and 600th similar comment I've gotten about ozstamps since he's been on FlyerTalk. I've used all those comments balanced with others to make decisions about his presense on FlyerTalk. He's still posting so apparently that input was welcomed, measured and not put into action (ozstamps has always been open minded and fair minded with any conversation I've had with him, which is all I ask of a member). If, FlyerTalk were to evolve into an arena whereby members or others could not feel free to speak their mind to me, then FlyerTalk fails to be of value to all when it comes to making decisions on behalf of all members. And with a plug for the 'right' (for our good member dovester), isn't that why Rush Limbaugh is a larger-then-life hero when he spouts off about the Democrats and more directly about Bill Clinton, Kerry or Dean?

The point being, there is none, nor has there been a great and rather lengthy debate of these types of posts. I ask for comment, measure them and move on. I feel that FlyerTalk would suffer if there was only a community of 'yes' members. I like the balance of opinion and have relied upon it for over five years now.

I have taken down TalkTeam for viewing by moderators because I can not look them in the eye and welcome their comments in this manner any more - in effect, I have failed them, not the members.

So, I continue to try and answer these questions as I might and as you know, sometimes i agree, sometimes I don't.

As an aside Punki, can you explain the purpose of having the moderator and other forums on moremiles.org private and not available to all members? I only just ventured there today to compare our practices with other boards and I would hope you agree - our practices are 100 percent in line with the prevailing practices of all major Internet bulletin boards. I really don't need an explanation, just a confirmation that we're more like most than not?

[This message has been edited by Randy Petersen (edited Feb 02, 2004).]

Dovster's reasonable -- until and unless you add an "E" j/k -- even if some would consider him "wrong" on some political positions.

Perhaps it (the thread) was moved because the guy whose name appears on this forum does not necessarily share the views about the sunshine law. Note that it's not the only thread that was moved out of ORP. I am a betting man, and I've got $20 that it's not a coincidence. edited to add: Randy beat me to the punch, so clearly I win $20. If he brings them back, I lose the bet.

The reason (and I'm speaking for myself here, certainly not Randy or any other moderator) that mods like to discuss their actions (or potential actions) among themselves is to avoid exactly what we have had here in the last 3 days.

Mod1: User X is doing something bad.

Mods2-5: discussing action.

Consensus: ask Randy to intervene in the form of a timeout.

Can you imagine what this would look like if it was deliberated in the open? If User X is part of one of the many established cliques?

And, the funniest part about all of this is that, with the exception of the OMNI "exception," the moderators lack the ability to actually time somebody out from a technical perspective. Randy (or somebody at webflyer) has to be the trigger.

Forget that example. Let's say I have a thread that I happen to think needs to be intervened in or perhaps locked. Why in the world should I not be able to discuss that in confidence with a group of people who are peers (in terms of being able to move/lock/edit threads)? It can (and has) often resulted in much better decisions for flyertalk as a whole.

edited to subtract: a bunch of theories that Randy confirmed before I got the chance to hit submit.

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.


[This message has been edited by ClueByFour (edited Feb 02, 2004).]

Randy, I sincerely hope you didn't use your FT password when you signed up at MoreMiles.

------------------
-alan in sitges, home of the new, improved Si-Re-Do

I just almost spit coffee on my laptop .

I'm curious, what kind of law do you practice? Do you have a practice in California?

I work as a strategy consultant now. I am admitted to the bar in NY and in Germany (I am German), but I do not practice law anymore. Next, I would be interested in either managing an Internet/media company or working in Private Equity/M&A, since I believe both would allow for being more proactive and creative - in my case and fitting my talents and interests, not saying at all that lawyers cannot be proactive and creative working as lawyers.

If you need a good lawyer in California, I can refer you to a friend of mine who is excellent, though. Also, I believe there are some lawyers admitted in California who post here on the board.

That is a great idea UALOneKPlus is always in need of a good lawyer

That's true!!

Thanks for the info attorney28. I was just curious.

Is that just a joke in your profile with www.despair.com or are you really affiliated with them? I think they are pretty funny, I have had the "procrastination" one on my desktop for a while.

It's just a joke. I wish I was smart enough to be affiliated with them.

I really like their stuff. It helps people deal with frustrations of work.

Originally posted by kokonutz:
Originally posted by Randy Petersen:
As I read down this page, I was prepared to give an endorsement to the creative and well-intentioned idea of kokonutz. It seemed a good attempt to solve the problem of overly clique-influenced decision-making.

Yet this is the only bulletin board I frequent, so I lack the perspective of many others. The counter-argument seems equally compelling.

Openness, sunshine, and even freedom of speech are not the highest virtues. Yes, we may have the divine gift of free will, but that means the option to do wrong. Other values, namely decorum, fairness, and slander-avoidance are at least as pertinent to the decisions Randy will have to make. (Thank you for pointing those out, kokonutz.)

Societal interests in open candid deliberation under certain circumstances are reflected in the various confidentiality privileges: doctor-patient, priest-penitent, husband-wife, psychotherapist-patient, etc. Other confidential communications are also protected, such as within business or fraternal organizations, though disclosure may be ordered during lawsuits, etc. One moral justification for confidentiality is avoidance of the sin of "detraction," unnecessarily disclosing the faults of others.

When I alluded to "overly clique-influenced decision-making," I did not mean by any means to disparage our host, nor the hard-working and often-put-upon moderator corps. One element of human nature is our social tendency to form relationships. Sometimes they may be based on similar interests, political, philosophical, religious, or lifestyle outlooks, common experiences, demographics, institutional membership, personal attraction, propinquity, or serendipity. Hopefully an enthusiasm for miles and points is a common denominator!

Because of human nature, it is inevitable that friendships and cliques will form, as well as antipathies. The positive and welcoming interactions actually strengthen the community aspect of the Flyer Talk experience.

Trying to limit the negative tendencies of the membership has been to a large extent solved by the dedicated moderator corps. What remains is the much more limited problem of imposing self-discipline on themselves.

Again, this is not an anti-moderation post. Not so incidentally, the problems among the membership as a whole that do require and will always require moderation have not abated. People with a high interest in points and miles tend to be goal oriented, competitive, and often somewhat obsessive. Hence the repeated refrain, "IJAIBB." If travel or temperament limits personal interactions, we may have reduced social skills. Hence, people who cannot conform their behavior to the expected norms will often carry a heavy burden or "grudge," and be expected to strike back, particularly if expelled from the community.

However, such behavior may also be expected on occasion among the Elite members of Flyer Talk, that is, high post-count individuals and the moderator corps itself. Particularly when their status and self-sacrifice are seen as denigrated or unappreciated.

I certainly do not believe you have let your moderator corps down, Randy. Given the strong-willed individuals who are members of Flyer Talk, such "hacking" incidents resulting in compromised confidentiality are by no means unexpected. Likewise, techniques to restore self-discipline are readily available. Two that come to mind are:

• moderation for the moderators
• background checks for the moderators

The former may be resisted just as moderation for the community was (and still is to a somewhat disruptive degree by a nostalgic few. Some people need to learn how to say, "Aye, aye, sir," and move on.) Yet the benefits of moderation are the same. If one, two, or three individuals whose judgment is sound and whose experience in miles and points is substantial, such as PremEx, for example, can be prevailed upon to serve as a "Dean of the Moderators" or moderator of the moderators forum, some of the excesses in the confidential fora might be able to be nipped in the bud or turned toward a more charitable and productive direction.

Similarly, given the vast authority of the moderators to influence the reception and perceptions, welcoming or otherwise, of Flyer Talk participants, it may be advisable to do some sort of background check. Particularly if moderators have technical skills that exceed those of your own IT staff, it is particularly important to know exactly who you're dealing with. A hacker with inside access, or who is disgruntled and formerly had inside access, perhaps installing a back door, leaves your website very vulnerable indeed. This vulnerability could extend from the non-profit aspect of your enterprises to the heart of the House of Miles itself. What if the Freddies, or advertiser accounts are hacked?

While the moderator corps consists of unpaid, self-sacrificing individuals who toil day in and day out, all it takes is one bad apple to cause major problems. An argument against background checks might be that they are not fool proof. Even the FBI had its spy. But that is really no justification for doing nothing. To the extent those who help you have access to inside information, surely most moderators would understand the need for background checks.

These are just two thoughts. I'm sure the remainder of the participants will think of many more.

Don't let this latest crime discourage you. I know from experience that crime victims often tend to blame themselves. We're all pulling for you!

This appears to have been an idea acted upon somewhat Kokonutz as a brand new Forum has just been opened to replace the old Moderators Forum, called:

Private ORP

For posting and proceedure review purposes only

I welcome Moderators ... moderating. Which IIRC is what they were introduced to do. To save time and work for Randy and staff. Moving mis-posted threads. Steering their Forums gently along. And hosing out Flames that very seldom occur now anyway. And locking or moving any thread that does not comply with any of the above.

A very small group of Moderators who appeared to be on an ever-escalating power trip let Randy down, (and their colleagues, most of whom do superb jobs) NOT the other way around. IMHO.

As I have posted recently there were 3 Flyertalk boards in existence until today:

Flyertalk Miles, Flyertalk Travel and Flyertalk Moderation.

In 99% of cases a polite email to the poster involved surely gets the desired result for a moderator, rather than a group huddle and often back-stabbing discussion being necessary?

Having a private Star Chamber with more gossip and defamation than the 'National Enquirer' was not welcome. By me anyway.

I applaud the new forum and the apparent idea behind it.

It will have no effect whatever on correct and prudent moderation.

I think it will make for a smoother, quieter, more enjoyable Flyertalk in general and a MUCH quieter and more pleasant "Only Randy Petersen" Forum.

=================================


[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Feb 02, 2004).]

There has been a lot of talk about my views on moderation, by a lot of people. Most of what they say, together with what some of you to apparently believe, is simply not accurate. I guess that just proves that Hitler was right--If you tell a lie long enough, and loud enough and often enough, then (some) people will believe it as the truth.

So to set the record straight, here are my real views on moderation:

1. First, I actually think that most moderators do a pretty good job.

2. I think more flames and attacks should be deleted (from private as well as public forums). Far too many are allowed to stand unchallenged.

3. I think that if there is a logical reason to leave a thread where it is originally posted, that it should be left alone. Some (only a very few) moderators appear to think that if there is any small justification for moving a thread, that it should be moved.

4. I think that "duplicate" threads should only be closed when there is a currently active thread on the same subject. I have seen instances where moderators have closed threads with a note that simply said, "this has been discussed before" or "as there are ideas for alternatives in many fora I am closing this one". If we started closing every thread on every topic that had been previously discussed, three wouldn't be much to talk about on FlyerTalk anymore.

That's about it, regardless of what anyone else might try to convince you that I believe.

The lack of respect for the sandbox and the guy who owns it is absolutely amazing.

Randy (not the moderators) created the Talkteam forum. Randy encouraged mods to discuss moderation issues. Somebody leaks information from the forum, and several posters who clearly lack respect for the community post private information. Randy closes the forum because he cannot offer the mods a forum to welcome their comments in a manner in which he intended (eg, private), and the very people who helped further this shame on the collective house by posting private information are gloating.

I renew my call for permanent bans for any and all posters involved in the act of posting private forum information in a public setting.

If nothing else, I continue to be amazed at Randy's patience. If somebody whizzed in my sandbox the way that many around here do on a regular basis, I would not be nearly as tolerent (much less the second time around, for some).

------------------
Don't feed the trolls.