Randy, it was noted twice in this thread that the Moderators are int he process of updating the TOS.

A few questions...
Are only their opinions and feedback being considered? Or is input from the FT Community as a whole as well as from our elected Talkboard being entered into the considerations? If no outside thoughts are entered into the discussion, especially from those elected by the community, could you explain the decision to solely let those who do the policing set the rules?

Will moderators now be held liable for not upholding the TOS?

Will this serve as a precursor for a consistent form of Moderator Guidelines?

As always, thanks for your time.

Sorry, I am not Randy. But as a Talkboard member I can say that we were involved in this process.

Actually (sorry I'm still not Randy), the new TOS is already online for all to read:

http://www.flyertalk.com/help/rules.php

Quaint notion:

Commercial Messages

Posts containing promotional messages for commercial or charitable products or services - including but not limited to Internet sites, business advertisements and solicitations to donate miles or points - will be removed. Unfortunately, it is impossible to verify the validity of each charitable organization; therefore, to protect FlyerTalk users from fraud, we prohibit solicitations for charities. We reserve the right to post announcements for donations of miles or points to recognized charities directly associated with various frequent flyer/guest programs.

If you spot a commercial post, please report it.

Why have a section of TOS devoted to this issue if it isn't applied evenly, if it ever is at all?

Chexfan I can't respond to your other queries, but I can advise TalkBoard as a group made no changes whatever to these guidelines drawn up by the Moderator volunteers.

For the record, TalkBoard proceeded to vote to approve the draft TOS in mid November. (A lot of drafting work from letiole - to whom thanks were given by TB!)

I was invited to vote to approve the draft, but was advised by one TB member it was too late to make any suggestions or changes or input as the deadline had apparently passed, despite no deadline being outlined anywhere at any time AFAIK.

In fairness I chose not to vote (or could have abstained) as I personally had no opportunity to add any input, and raised some matters that were important to me, and were just common sense.

The elected TalkBoard itself added or changed nothing in regards these TOS, despite there being some pretty vigorous posts seeking fine tuning to sections of it by one member of TB. However under TB conventions, I am only permitted to post my own comments, which were:


Also unless I am missing where to look for it on FT, these new "Guidelines and Rules" do not appear to cover some areas that once were posted as being part of the FT TOS and rules?

For example TalkBoard did recently vote 8-1 and 8-0 in polls ending February to approve two rule changes re user names. They appear to now exist nowhere in writing in Guidelines or TOS to guide the new and existing members it was designed to assist. (Unless I can't find them - but I have looked for 5 minutes.) :

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=524963

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=516553

But the new rules appear only to ban discussion of specific moderator actions; i.e., they ALLOW discussions about moderation in general -- relevant to another thread in here that was locked a while back.

Not sure that is correct at all RichardInSF. AFAIK all moderators have agreed as a group last year not to post in this Forum, so not sure if anyone can clarify, but my understanding is that question could really only be answered by Randy anyway. Indeed the thread you mention along those lines is only recent, but I do know Randy has been on the road and had a bout of Flu etc, combined with all the Freddies stuff etc.

There are some pretty bizarre Zimbabwe-like boiler plate sections in the new TOS text such as:

"Discipline may be imposed even if the member did not intend to violate the rules or even if similar conduct was tolerated earlier in the same or other forums."

Which of course is the result one generally gets anywhere when regulators exclusively write the regulations, with no meaningful external input or discussion taking place prior to implementation, to hopefully dispense with Orwellian nonsense like that.

Both you and I could be deemed to have breached that rubbery-rubbery-vague part of the TOS by our posts here.

Be rather like the NYPD drafting the entire NYC criminal code themselves internally, with no external or independent input or review.

As I posted in TB Forum, and I'd like to clarify, the great bulk of the new update seems fine and logical to me, and I have no issues whatever with 99.9% of it. However some screaming draconian clangers (IMHO) like the one above were not removed, simply as there was no effective process to suggest it be removed by a party or parties not involved in implementing the TOS.