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