While I agree that the moderator in the above linked thread should have recused himself, I do not agree that the comments by akek00 should have been deleted/edited.

Therewas certaintly a number of members who objected (8?), but there was also a similar number who did not object in the least.

The above mentioned link is just another example of the stalking that has been running rampant here on FT.

Isn't the idea of a better defined Moderator process an even better idea as we have seen things get way out of hand. It is the very arbritary moderation we currently have and the ability of members to plant "flame bombs" that I think cause many of these problems. It is easy to talk about the problems. I have suggested elected Moderators, it has been suggested to me that we could rotate moderators from board to board over time. What other suggestions do members have? Or do you think that we do not have a problem at all?

------------------
dallasflyer

Here's an example of over-moderation, in my view:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum50/HTML/022280.html

The guy posts on the UA board to ask about the security wait at Denver which has 70% UA traffic. The moderator moves the post to FT Airports under a topic that's had no posts for more than 30 days.

I give this one an A for neatness, and an F for effective communication.

Next time the guy has a question, he'll likely go elsewhere. Is this really what Randy wants?

I should think that the grade should be a little higher than an F, since I took the time to give an exact link to the now-transferred post , rather than just saying go to FT Airports/DEN.

But in any case, I too would be interested in knowing what Randy wants. I have tried to follow his instructions that posts be made in the most appropriate forum and if that counsel has changed on his part I certainly would want to know.

That said, there is certainly nothing wrong -- and both neatness and communication are achieved -- when someone posts in the correct forum and then posts a cross-reference (not a cross-post) in a related forum that says, "Could ya'll take a look at my posts at xxxx and give me some comments."

All of that said, I do personally think that the FT Airports forum has not been the success that Randy had hoped, and that given the amount of traffic there, those posts could in fact be in Travel Buzz. But that's a different issue.

Chuck
aka cblaisd
Moderator, United

(edited to add last paragraph)


[This message has been edited by cblaisd (edited 09-27-2003).]

Exactly, Mountain Trader!

This is exactly the type of situation where I would prefer to see the moderator use the, "Is there any logical reason to leave this post in place?" approach, rather than the, "Is there any possible reason for moving this post?" criterion.

Obviously this post mades perfectly good sense in the UA forum for all UA flyers, who sometimes get to go DEN, whether they want to or not. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif It is this type of subjective thread movement that I seen as unnecessary and disruptive to the natural flow of FT.

What exactly is "Subjective" about this paragraph.

The Moderators are following the guidelines given to them by Randy. Obviously, Randy wants FT MILES to be about MILES.

Why is this illogical?

But remember that the Moderator's understanding of the process is to move posts this way. We should not necessarily be blaming anyone. Let's just work on positive suggestions to Randy and the Moderators to help improve the moderation process if you feel it needs improving. Thank you to all the moderators that are participating in this thread.

------------------
dallasflyer, Let's put the fun back in FlyerTalk!

Thanks for your objective answer, with which I completely agree. I'd redo my grade on communication at least to a C.

Another post after mine and yours hit the nail on the head: The standard should be "Is there a vital reason to move or close this thread?". If so, do it. If not, don't. And Randy's the one who has to make the change.

I don't agree on the moving the thread part. Even if it's not "vital" IMHO. Whenever possible, a thread should be moved to it's proper place. And as long as a Moderator puts in the link to it's new location...what's the problem?

If people see too much leeway being given and too many off-forum threads being tolerated...guess what? You're gonna get even more of them...guaranteed.

Many folks are lazy. Or just want to post where they are known. Or where they think it will get the most readership and/or response...all without regard to organization. Those types of behavior should not be encouraged in that individual and others by "looking the other way" too often, IMHO.

If folks see just proper forum topics, and those that are not being quickly (but nicely) moved...they will quickly learn and adapt.

IMHO.

My only advise for Moderators is if you're going to relocate a thread, please make doubly sure you are relocating it to a proper forum! The most common mistake I see being made is not in the judgment that the thread doesn't belong where it was originally posted. What I have seen most is some poor judgment (but rare mind you) on where it's moved to!

I've seen too many travel questions being moved to OMNI, for example. Instead of TravelBuzz or some other Travel forum where it might actually belong.

Nothing makes a Moderator's action look more loopy than moving an off-forum thread to some other forum that it also doesn't belong in! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

But 99% of the time, I think Moderators are doing a great job. Here's to The Great Relocate-rs! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif Thanks for making FlyerTalk a better travel resource for those that appreciate a well organized, monitored and on-topic bulletin board! http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

The less chaff, the more attractive it is to newcomers too, IMHO. It's what separates FlyerTalk from those other internet newsgroups and unmoderated boards.

While it may not be illogical for for FT miles to be about miles, in my observation, that's not the way it is in practice (to this point in time, anyhow).

Think about the individual airline forums- they cover a range of topics outside of discussion of the FF program, and are, once again in my observation, the center of discussion about a range of issues surrounding each airline _and_ its affiliated FF program.

If FT Miles really were solely about miles, then there'd be an AAdvantage section in FT Miles ("how do I waitlist for an AAdvantage mileage upgrade?") and and American section in, say, FTtravel ("how is AA J service?"). Repeat as necessary for divorcing each airline from it's loyalty program.

Milesbuzz, for instance, is tightly moderated to be about miles, IMHO, and I believed that most of the overflow ends up at Travelbuzz. If every forum were moderated that tightly, a _lot_ of threads in the individual airline forums would end up elsewhere, but where?

Given the current situation as described above, moderation is, in most cases, a subjective issue, (IMHO).

You are correct about the individual airlines. Maybe there should be another set of forums in FT Travel.

But, there IS a set of Forums for Airports. That is where an Airport question belongs.

If the moderation policy/guidelines are changed, FT will become a vast wasteland of crap. As it is now, Press Releases are cluttering the indiviual forums when the SHOULD be in the "In the News" forum. Add in even more off-topic threads and FT will become useless.

Just a small correction for factual use here. Moderator Guidelines were not given by me. Moderator Guidelines were actually developed by members themselves and the TalkBoard. These most excellent guidelines have no personal imprint by myself, the thanks going to BlondeBomber, as well as AAW and Robb. There are certainly from time to time a different view of a post being moved around, but let's put into perspective the number of posts that FlyerTalk generates. We average nearly 20,000 posts per week. I will guarantee you that no matter whom moderators are and the posts involved, there will be a question about one of them next week, next month and years from now. But considering the activity on this Board, I still maintain the moderators have a very good record.

I stand corrected.

Nothing new here.

But in the past, I've long enjoyed flyertalk, gotten something out of it, hopefully contributed a little something back. But for the past couple months, seeing good threads closed has been constantly infuriating. On a pleasant afternoon between two Cubs' playoff victories, I shouldn't get infuriated.

There is a thread closed in MilesBuzz about fare basis rules. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/009352.html
Someone asked for a web page that explained them, and there was a useful discussion about it beginning, and then one of the moderators closes it off with the statement,
"it is unrelated to miles or points".

Problems understanding fare rules has been my #1 problem with frequent flyer programs. I'm sure for others it is different. But understanding the fine print of bonus mile offers sometimes has meant understanding much more about the various codes than most airline employees are able to tell you. And there are new and changing rules about fares which affect the ability to upgrade, a frequent flyer program benefit. And there are fares in some airlines which do not allow the accrual of frequent flyer miles, an important aspect of the fare code which has been the a-posteriori cause of many threads. And I'm sure there are many other aspects of fare basis codes which are both related and unrelated to frequent flyer programs. And I'm sure that an interesting discussion could have covered both aspects. Instead, because of someone's sense of order, it has been effectively cut off. And what would have been the harm of leaving it?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/mad.gif

Deep breath.

[moderator hat on]
Given that

1) the topic is only marginally on-topic
2) there has been many similar discussions in the past
3) this is a topic with high potential for acrimonious emotional exchange.

The thread is now closed.

[moderator hat off]

Posted by Platos in a peanut allergy thread on AA. Evidently because of a person with a severe peanut allergy all nuts were banned from this flight. If you look at the many other topics on the AA forum I have no idea why this one is any more on or off topic that others. It is this type of moderation, the apparent premptive strike that I wish we would change. I found the thread interesting and would have liked to have heard others opinions, maybe some from AA folks themselves? I emailed the moderator involved with no response as yet.

------------------
dallasflyer, Let's put the fun back in FlyerTalk!

I responded already via e-mail, but here's my rationale for those interested...


I don't consider the possiblity of flaming to be "may". It's a certainly, because uthornsgo's reponses are already bordering on a flame war. This type of discussion happens all the time, whether a passenger's request should be accomodated by others or whether the requestor should just deal with his own problems.

Maybe it's food allergies, or an oversized pax, or children who travel. They are all emotional topics which have little direct relevance to AA or AAdvantage. There will be discussion, but people don't tend to be persuaded out of their existing positions. As such it becomes an arena where people strike a pose and hold it.

Unless the prohibition of all nuts for an allergic passenger is policy for AA, which I know it is not, it's really more of an Omni topic than an FT:AA topic.

Bingo. Some topics you know, based on past experience, are going to be "rough and tumble". Witness the TravelBuzz thread on "seat blockers" to prevent people reclining their seat. Within a half-dozen posts, you could see that sides and weapons were drawn and much written blood would be spilled.

I'm not against "free-wheeling" posts. I've waded hip-deep into more than one myself, on occasion. But they should be restricted to more general forums - like OMNI or the "Buzzes". I don't need to read about seat blockers in the UA forum (especially since I find Economy Plus negating the issues with seat reclining). It might be more "relevant" in the CO or DL forums (with their universal 30-31" Y pitch), but even there, you know there will be a few "if you flew UA/AA/Business/First Class, you would not have this problem" replies and then it becomes airline vs. airline or elites vs. non-elites.

I think we need a new forum - Thunderdome - for threads that devolve into two sides that have ossified into intractable debates. Label it "Two sides enter, no side leaves" and let the folks who want to hash it out ad nauseum hash it out. No moderators. No rules.

Any moderator who feels a thread has "degraded" to the point it should be closed can move it to Thunderdome, instead. So the thread remains "open and available" so neither "side" has to open another "Overmoderation" thread here and those folks who joined in, and now are getting slapped around, have to live with their decision to get into it and can't run to a moderator or Randy and "demand satisfaction" for TOS violations because the TOS will not apply (in a general sense. There are always some rules that must be enforced for legal reasons, and posts that violate them can be deleted with an "Edited for legal reasons" moniker).

[Edited for UBB errors]

[This message has been edited by SEA_Tigger (edited 10-07-2003).]

This is a HORRIBLE idea. It's bad enough when rivalries from one part of this board infect other, completely unrelated areas.

And SEA_Tigger wants a forum for the gloves to come off?

This is a SCREAMINGLY TERRIBLE idea.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/rolleyes.gif

------------------
-Otto

Well, having all the rivalies confined to one forum might prevent them from spilling all over the place. And having no moderators would end the "moderator X went too far closing / editing this thread" posts in this forum.

I have no real issues with the current "moderation protocols" in place on FlyerTalk. My only issue is that a few people getting frisky can shut down a thread that had good dialogue going, but it's easy enough to keep opening new ones to try and keep the positive conversations going. And it keeps folks on their toes as they have to bounce from closed thread to closed thread to follow along. http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif

Are these moderator guidelines published somewhere?

The Talkboard guidelines certainly are published:

http://www.flyertalk.com/townhall/tb_guidelines.shtml

Also be interested in reading the Moderator ones.

------------------
Try and make it down to SYD for "OZ FEST 2004" - May 21-23

~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from UA 747-400 exit row 15A near you SOON!

ozstamps I only can direct you to the director’s cut of the TalkModerator Guidelines.

But for a self-appointed, totally unofficial and unpaid volunteer watchdog of the Ansett Australia Forum it should be not too difficult to ask for it ... http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/wink.gif

Thanks! :) As a moderator, can you perhaps reveal if there is anything additional in the way of "guidelines", or is this pretty much "it"?

While I'd kinda' thought it was important in general, I just wondered about it in view of the migration to the now one month old "new" board, and the concommitant expanded role and/or powers attributed to our moderators.

Thanks again, in advance! :)

-Mark

The software got upgraded, the philosophy still remains the same

Thanks.

I thought there may have been a notice/announcement that I might have missed. :)

-Mark

The software might not allow an Omni-only ban, but there is another way to handle it. Simply tell someone he is banned on Omni for a specific period. If he goes ahead and posts there during that period he will be banned from the whole board for 6 months.

That should ensure that he won't violate the ban while still allowing someone who might be problematic on Omni the opportunity to post useful messages elsewhere.

I like the new software the way it is (systemwide timeout). OMNI is a part of FT, and TOS violations on OMNI should have an impact on someone's ability to post on the rest of the board.

What an altogether surprising response from an OMNI moderator.

:confused:

I totally agree with this assessment ... and I am NOT an Omni moderator.

We should not get to pick and choose to behave different on one forum than we do on another. IT is Flyertalk.... not Flyertalk OMNI... and Flyertalk Rest of the Board.

William

My only disagreement with these comments would be that OMNI is like the wild wild west and that many subjects and the manner in which they are discussed would not be tolerated on the rest of FT. So a different standard for moderation and a seperate punishment for going out of bounds, especially in OMNI where I quite frankly have no idea where the boundaries are most of the time. I must admit that I rarely visit OMNI or post to it.

Here are the rules that apply to posting in OMNI: http://www.flyertalk.com/rules

Have to agree with dallasflyer.

Someone passionately political (either side) or religious (take your choice of flavours) 'might' cross a line (real or imaginary) in OMNI.

This silly new system where they get a systemwide ban is absolutely ridiculous, if they otherwise are a valuable and knowledgeable poster on AA, DL, HH or UA etc. IMHO.

That can't be a plus for FT.

doc copped an OMNI ban for allegedly bumping up too many threads. :rolleyes:

OMNI is a part of FT. Members are not suddenly exempt from the TOS just because the happen to be a wealth of knowledge in an air, hotel, or car program. In fact, users are not exempt from the TOS regardless of how much they contribute to the dicussion of miles and points, period (this is IMHO, of course).

There is ample precedence for this, most of which revolves around decisions rendered by Randy himself as opposed to any of the current crop of moderators. This is not MHO, and one can read about it if one searches around.

My personal (and yes subjective) observation of the time outs has been that the majority were for failing to heed cease and desist requests.

In most cases by my observation, the c & d was delivered and the receipient immediately began a tirade of unfairness since they could search and find other instances where such requests were not delivered. Incredibly they have no way of knowing. The fact is that c & d requests may have been delivered and the poster did exactly what was requested without complaining online about it.

X number of cases, numerous time outs were for failing to heed the c & d and nothing else. If I was given a c & d my response would be to take it immediately offline but then that is me. Others do not take it offline and so get a time out not for their original offense but for the subsequent offense. I do this all the time in my officiating and it is referred to as a warning. Some heed the warning some don't.

I was at a workshop this weekend for NCAA officials and the number 1 complaint by coaches of the officiating was that officials let principles (assumptions) get in the way of rules. Or more importantly they allowed misapplied assumptions to get in the way of the rules. Yep the coaches wanted the rules more strickly enforced but my personal (subjective) feeling is that if the pendulum swings the other way there will be a call for less use of rules and more of principles. All in all though the coaches wanted the officials to be there (for game management) but to improve.

The point of this comment is that I want moderators to be here for board management and it is a thin line they tread also between principles and rules. Will they continue to improve? Most certainly in my opinion (still being subjective here.) There can not be any way one hears or sees criticism without responding to it in one way or the other and the normal response is to take corrective action to stop the criticism. If people still believe that the moderators have not been improving or providing a useful since the implementation of moderation they are not being subjective.

As an analogy I could say you are not a moron and not an alien (subjective.) You may have done a great number of actions that prove you are a moron and are an alien and even have some proper accreditation proving that you are a moron and an alien, yet I still say you are not a moron and an alien. Now I am not being subjective and I believe that some posters are doing the same when it comes to the discussion of moderation.

Agree. ^^

IIRC, didn't the boilerplate for the old forum that state something to the effect that "participants are subject to the FlyerTalk rules, and are subject to discipline for breaking these rules regardless of positive contributions on the other boards." ?

Intesting twist to the discussion...
 

So should we amend the "creedo" to say: "You are what you post (except for the OMNI, Talkboard, or Only Randy Petersen forums)." ?

Again, I don't think there should be seperate standards for the different boards (OMNI, Miles/Points, or Travel). The only difference in OMNI is that the topics can get heated a lot faster. As long as you don't turn to Personal Attacks, you can argue until you're blue in the face (and most do! :))

Sean, what I suggested would not be amending anything. It would merely be returning us to the system which has worked since Omni began.

I realize that, I was being facetious. Should I add a dreaded smiley? :)

---

Is that truly so? You may very well know more than I do. I honestly don't know for certain myself. FWIW, I do remember feeling, at that time, that I'd never received a satisfactory answer.

As I recall, I was informed by a moderator that I was being recommended to Randy for a "timeout" since I "took the bait" by linking together a few "duplicate" threads, ie I posted "please also see... the other thread" where another poster had posted the identical material that I had earlier, some time later.

Admittedly, as you see/read, I am still somewhat baffled as to why I was timed out. FWIW, I'm so hurtin', I did not even know that it was "bait!" And perhaps even more stupidly, I thought it was a common and accepted practice. Apparently, I was wrong. :( You live, and you learn. I hope that I have, even if ever so slowly, learned. :)

While I certainly feel/felt that I'd been unfairly treated, I think my interpretation is perhaps somewhat irrelevant, however. It was a judgement call, I suppose, and while it is not one that I'm inclined to agree with, it is not MY board.

FWIW, I'm quite happy now, as I was then, and I hope and expect that all who frequent and post in OMNI, as well as the moderators, are very happy too. :)

I'm pleased to try to help make their moderator job a little bit easier, and to hopefully make OMNI, and all FT, an overall better place for folks who visit here. :)

-Mark