Gaucho is agreeing with me

I better run and buy some Texas Lotto and Texas Mega Millions tickets, this event doesnt't occur but once in 3,574.19 years

I don't think I've had the pleasure of meeting vasantn, but i'd like to single out this members post as one that I feel best represents the mood on FlyerTalk regarding moderators. Thanks for summing this up from a members point-of-view. As for moderators sensitivity to criticism - that's called professional pride.

Sadly, I'm increasingly inclined to agree that it may well in fact be "Time for a moderator in this forum"

-Mark

You want the present listed Moderator here replaced doc? He does a pretty neat job IMHO.

I assume the suggestion is whether Randy could use some assistance here, given his other competing priorities. @:-)

Agree. ^^

Yes, but will we abide by the actions of said moderator, or will we continue to "kick it upstairs" to Randy when we receive an answer or action we don't like?

Perhaps robb will volunteer?

He has just stated forgery of user names by other users to innocent recipients "reputation" was harmless "fun", so he'd be likely a steady hand to moderate here for sure?

The present moderator has always done a fine job here IMHO.

I agree ORP now appears to be in need of a full time moderator primarily due to what gleff posted.

This forum has been on fire for the past couple weeks, aptly demonstrating the need for flame control in Randy's absence. Yet moderation would be a thankless task, no matter how gently and wisely it was done. Perhaps a member of the FT staff could lock any thread 24 hours after its initiation until Randy has a chance to see it and decide if he wants to respond. This gives the community a chance to weigh in on the initial post, yet keeps the conversation contained.

I agree with an unstated premise that having a moderator on this board may impede the free flow of information to our host.

A 24-hour limit on initial thread activity would empower "FT junkies" with nothing better to do, or who are overly emotionally invested in Flyer Talk, to the exclusion of frequent-travelling professionals.

Without seeking to play one group of people against another, whose contributions generally have more wisdom, and who causes the excessively long threads with minimal real value?

I do not know whether limiting the debate in this forum is necessary -- though some of the recent tirades certainly suggest some limit is indeed called for.

If there is to be a temporary limit, that could be overridden if Randy wants more input, perhaps it would be better to limit the number of times a given individual can post in any thread on this board?

Of course both types of limit, temporal and post-count, can be easily skirted by simply starting a new thread.

Well, if we could agree to stop resurrecting dead threads it might help.

If I might ask (and I am asking, not arguing), what point is served by dragging up 47 old posts on an unrelated issue simply because the "moderator" word was used in the title? Now folks have to wade through all that old stuff (and some probably got their blood pressure pumped up reliving that old squabble) before getting to the "new" material.

Is there some good reason a new thread was not begun instead? It's not saying that what happened in the old thread had led directly to this one, is it?

If there was something in the old thread of general relevance (i.e., the fact that the general issue had been raised before), wouldn't it have served just as well to do a lead-in with link somewhat as follows:


See. Is that so hard? That way if someone was interested in the dead past and wanted to go down memory lane, he has a link he can use to go on his archeological expedition without dragging everyone else along (and chewing up bandwidth).

Is something of value lost if we do it that way?

I think that one of the biggest problems on Flyer Talk is the unnecessary proliferation of threads. The events of the past month in this forum have provided ample evidence of that, and it is prevalent throughout the board.

I don't know whether people like to be known as the "topic originator," enjoy breaking down issues into multiple sub-issues, perhaps don't have the time or inclination to do a search, or whether there are even better reasons for the existence of multiple threads on the same topic.

Undoubtedly one reason is that humans each have their own ways of organizing information.

In this case, I find that, without exception, all of the "old threads" resurrected by doc were relevant to topics of ongoing current interest. Many of us didn't read the thread the first time around, and this is an invaluable service to those of us who wish to learn from the Flyer Talk institutional history.

Those who have read it before and recall the details have several easy options. If already aware it is an ancient thread, you can go straight to the last page. If you become aware on the first page, that is just one step more. If prior passions become inflamed, it might be best to just skip the thread.

But on behalf of those of us who choose to learn from history -- thank you, Mark!

If someone wants to dredge up old dead threads, that's fine with me. My objection is inflicting them on unsuspecting folks who are trying to stay current without a lot of time on their hands, or are trying to suck threads through a modem on the road and don't want to have their time (and bandwidth) squandered.

I just think it is inconsiderate to do it this way. Link the old thread if you feel you must.

For folks who like the "Golden Oldies" or otherwise don't have anything else to do with their time, they can always click the link.

P.S. I fully agree with you, SPN Lifer, that one of the problems we have "is the unnecessary proliferation of threads" (emphasis added). When there are four or five (or now, here, about ten!) current threads on the same subject, that in my book is "unnecessary". Similarly, when discussing the "value" of an airline mile, it helps to have the prior discussion attached.

However, what about "necessary" proliferation? We don't just keep adding to old threads like the "Who We All Are" series; it gets too bulky to continue to add by accretion, so we break the thread off and start a new one.

Similarly, when a matter has been fully discussed, and closed out months or even years earlier, why bring back the whole thread to reopen the general subject? That's the time for a new thread that is focused on the new specifics.

Why drag in the peripherals when you can link to them? It's tidier that way.

<non-lawyers can quit reading here.>

As a (fellow) lawyer, I'd think you'd appreciate the concept. What would happen if, every time you had a new case in securities law, the judge republished, verbatim, every opinion ever written on the subject as a lead-in to his contribution? That's what citations and footnotes are for. Otherwise your advance sheets would be enormous, the bound volumes would proliferate beyond the available shelf space (as though they don't already), and the difficulty in sifting through the old stuff to find the new thought would be greatly magnified.

Why, even the lower court decisions in that very case aren't reprinted verbatim in the higher court opinions except in very unusual cases (almost always because the lower court opinion wasn't published, and thus cannot be "linked" with a citation).

I adhere to my earlier conclusion: Use links, don't resurrect unless there's a good reason.

Perhaps it would depend upon whether I might wish to be chastised by the "why drudge up 'dead' threads" contingent, or alternatively to be chided by the "why start another new thread" crowd?

Of course, the "why post this" at all critics will get ya' every time anyway!

Alas, if only we were all of like minds.... yet that might preclude the need for a "Counsellor," no?

Of course, now we are off topic as well!

Personally, Randy may be better served by having a mod, or two, keeping an eye out for him on this forum.

Just my opinion...

Thanks!

-Mark