Why was this thread, and only this thread moved?

I realize that it exposed a rather unattractive side of several moderators, but I personally would like to see the thread stand and have those moderators who participated in the slander and gossip be held accountable for their actions.

Having witnessed, both first and second-hand some of the questionable activity that goes on behind closed doors on TalkBoard, and now seeing it second-hand on TalkTeam, my preference would be to eliminate private boards. There is nothing that needs to be said by either TalkBoard or TalkTeam members that can't be said in public and it would appear that the illusion of secrecy just brings out the worst in some folks.

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

Punki, as you are aware, only Randy and his staff could have moved this thread.

I have never had any interaction with you in my 4,000+ posts on FT, but considering the nature of this weekend's events, one would think that you could take a break for one day from your relentless rhetoric that is bashing the moderators and the existence of private forums. Randy & the FT team have far more important issues to deal with than this. IMHO, you post regarding this thread is inappropriate and either could have waited until a resolution to this hacking occurred, or you could have emailed FT.



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

LOL! Is it cruel to say that I am terribly curious about what is being discussed in those "private" forums right now?

I had a similar suggestion in the Omni thread before that was locked:

quote:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The moderators have every right to talk about anything they want to, in private.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

I completely agree, and it is a shame that their confidence was violated.

That said, from a pubic (and to a certain extent private) policy perspective, the greatest assest to comity and good leadership is sunshine. Star-chamber type smoky room gossip-mongering is fun and all (and God knows were I on that forum I'd engage in it), but this is two times now that Randy is being embarassed by what is being talked about behind his closed doors by his volunteer helpers. Were I Randy, going forward I would have decision-takers have discussions in a read-only (for all but the decision-makers) forum.

Yes it is true that such openness would stifle decision-takers frankness, but it would also assure decorum and fairness (or at least it would avoid slander).

Punki, it now appears that all of the threads involved in this hacking incident are being moved. IMHO, you have totally overreacted by your post.

It would appear Rssrsvp that you have been misinformed. I have never bashed any moderator and was an advocate for moderation long before it existed on FT. It is true that I have questioned the closing/moving of some threads and, as a result, some of them were reopened. Most Moderators do a really good job, but even the truly great one's like Craig and Gleff are not (and I am sure they will agree) flawless or perfect.

I did out Squeakr's false accusation in this thread. She misrepresented the facts and abused her authority, plain and simple. She should be held accountable for her actions as they reflect poorly not only on her, but on Randy and all the other moderators who are trying to do a great job.


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

You have quite a track record of complaining about moderators. Every single moderator is a volunteer or have you ignored this? If you have a complaint, why not deal with it in the most expeditious manner? By this I mean emailing Randy directly. You are a lady whom I assume has been in the business world for quite some time. You must realize that in order to get anything rectified, you take it off line. So to bring up an open ended complaint which you've held on numerous occasions here shows us that what you really want is an open-ended whining session. Now how is this productive?

If you were 18, maybe I could understand the need for attention as an 18 year old is new to the business world. But you're not; you are an accomplished woman. So why resort to this?

Oh, for crying out loud! Here we go again.

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

As I mentioned in my initial reply to you, I have never had any interaction with you before, and do not have an axe to grind. A simple search on the ORP board supports my statement regarding your views on moderation.

I stand by my previous remarks.

Analise, it would appear that you too are misinformed.

It is true that there is a small gang of folks who do a great deal of complaining every time I mention moderation, even when I am clearly in the right as in this instance, and the thread is reopened. These folks were moderated by me a couple of years ago on another website and are apparently playing "payback".

Obviously that gang has been somewhat successful at their game as they have convinced both you and and Rssrsvp of my guilt. If I think a thread is inappropriately moved or closed, I say so. Randy has indicated on several occasions that so doing is entirely appropriate, but search as you may,you will never find an instance of my "bashing" a moderator.

The issue with Squeakr is a separate matter. She misrepresented the facts and apparently thought she could get away with it because of my "reputation for not liking moderators". She does need to be held accountable for this action as it reflects poorly on FlyerTalk, Randy and all the rest of the moderators, most of whom do a really fine job.

I also hope that the moderators who participated in the slander and gossip within the TalkTeam thread are held accountable. They too reflect poorly on FT.

How does this:
comport with this:
?

It all comes down to this: if you want to effect change, you would do so directly. Not by starting a new topic of complaints.

Hey, I just realized how incredibly ironic it is that the very folks whose job it is to make sure that personal mentions, much less attacks, get a pad lock do so by engaging in the banned behavior, sometimes to disturbing lengths.

Does one really have to break the rules in order to enforce them?

Again, I'd prefer to see moderator deliberations in the open. As others mentioned, much of the moderators discussion that was revealed seemed totally appropriate and civil and I dont see any reason why these leaders would not say the same things in an open-to-read forum.

Guess what? You all made good points. But right now, I think that the absolute last thing we need is to inflame feelings any further.

That was exactly what the hoaxter was trying to accomplish and I, for one, don't want to award him a victory for his sick actions.

You know what, I don't think I ever really read one of your posts before someone asked for a timeout for you, but most of the posts I have seen from you really seem very reasonable.

That's only because you have never read the infamous "Unabashed Cholula Spam" thread on the Delta Board. If you do, you will NEVER accuse me of being "reasonable" again!