Speaking as a member and not as a moderator, I would say yes, along the lines of my earlier proposal

Careful what you wish for!

I think Randy and I have an unstated, unwritten understanding that I am literally the last person on the face of FT who would be able to handle such a responsibility.

As might have been stated in that great AA-board thread from a year or so ago, that would be like getting the fox to guard the dead horse!

You're right. There was effectively no way to prohibit him from re-registering. I was careless in my wording. Sorry. I meant to refer to the situation once it was obvious that F9999 was Flailey re-registered.

At last, we get back to the topic of this thread. The question was granting pardons to banned members, as long as they express contrition and their future posts are OK. I said that it wasn't necessary, that they could just re-register if their posts were going to be within bounds. Obviously, if their posts were outside the limits, they would be in trouble no matter which way they went.

You appear to be saying that it was OK with you for Flailey to re-register in a new persona, because his posts were helpful. I hope I am misunderstanding you, but if not, I don't understand this in view of the actions you have taken regarding him in the past. I am not fully aware of those circumstances.

I didn't send a note that it was him, but I believe others did. Actually, I believe that there were a number of other examples provided of re-posting of Flailey material by F9999. I saw enough examples posted in public to convince me long before he was resuspended. These posts were deleted pretty promptly. Of course, I can't cite examples except by memory (for some reason, the term "Meta" comes to mind), but you can look them up if you wish. In addition, I believe other examples were sent by PM to moderators.

What constitutes "proof" for one person may not for another. In this instance, there were quite a few members who were satisfied long before he was rebanned. And, I might point out, they were right. Is it really a "witch hunt" if it catches a real witch? :D

And I thought I was the one who was supposed to be "gloat(ing) over the misfortunes" of others. (Sorry, mods). ;)
As noted earlier, different people are convinced by different amounts of proof. In this case, I don't think it is fair to characterize the situation prior to the rebanning as "without proof and facts, just someone's say so". There was indeed proof, of the same nature and kind as that which eventually convicted him. Just not enough proof for some. Finally, the amount of proof became overwhelming, and he was banned. That is what I meant by "obvious".

I think it is also fair to say that different moderators have different proof levels. It is my understanding that at least one moderator felt that their level of proof had been met well prior to the actual banning.
Er...if you're referring the the link in my earlier post, that thread was started by Blumie. I did not post on that thread.

You seem to be under the impression that this was a vendetta or "jihad" by me to get f9999. It was not. I participated only marginally, many others can rightfully take the credit for "outing" him.

But your remark does raise a question. If a thread is started to raise an issue, and you say that you will get to it when your time allows, what is a reasonable amount of time to let go by before starting another thread to ask the same question? (Normally, it is impossible for us to "bump" those threads, as they are closed). I had always assumed that this situation just reflected a reluctance to address the issue at hand, but now that I know that it is an oversight, I would like a guideline time for raising the question again. Or, is there another, better method to accomplish this?

And, lastly, I hope I'm not digging a hole for myself by posting here. Someone once said: "FlyerTalk is most valuable when all its members treat it as if it were their own." That is what I am doing. Obviously, if I didn't value this forum, I wouldn't take the time and trouble to address what I see as a problem.

What problem is it that you are addressing -- bannings not happening fast enough, bannings not having a lower threshold of cause/evidence, too few bannings or something else?

Too long to explain, but in a few words, inequity and wild inconsistency in the application of "discipline" to purported offenders.

Is your head sore, from all the wall-banging?

I guess it comes down to, for lack of better terms, what the "vision" or "mission statement" is for FT. If you use what's posted under the "Help" heading in "About Flyer Talk", it seems to clearly indicate FT is here to support travelers, and to be a premier travel site. There's nothing in there about political debates, religious discussions, or Iraq and the President. I'd be hard pressed to see how those topics support travel in any way, and there must be hundreds of web sites around the internet where those topics can be discussed, versus using the resources of FT (whatever cost for server and staff time, let alone moderator time, which I know was an issue when the OMNI RV was on patrol for a while).

FlyerTalk, part of the WebFlyer Network, features discussions and chat boards that covers the most up-to-date traveler information. An interactive community dedicated to your favorite topic: travel! That's right: all travel, all the time. The FlyerTalk forums are open for business 24 hours, 7 days a week. Even better, all travelers -- from vacation travelers to mileage junkies -- are welcome in the community. Just choose a forum and you can get to the business at hand: conversing about programs, how to make the most of your miles and points, general travel, airports, destination and dining information.

If we want to include members who have moved on to making OMNI their "home" forum and not contribute in the travel forums, they probably should be included in there in some fashion, but somehow I can't see you adding a line such as, "and we also have a forum covering politics, religion, and government for those that prefer not to discuss travel, and we welcome your non-travel contributions".

To me, it looks like OMNI gets more posts now than the UA forum, which has always looked like the busiest FT forum since I joined 7 years ago. Do you want a non-travel forum to be the most popular forum in a travel community? As members on FT increase and more gain access there, do you want it to continue to be the forum that gets more posts than any of your travel forums? It just seems to go against the purpose you built this site, and to which you frequently refer--to discuss points and miles.

I'm not expecting you to close OMNI, but I'd like the focus for posters here to be TRAVEL, and not OMNI. If that means limiting posts per day in OMNI, or some other measure to get FTers back to talking about travel, versus making OMNI their "home forum", I'm all for it.

Thankyou for the letting me share my views.

Agree
 

I agree. Actually, I think a quota per day for OMNI posts might be a good idea.

I didn't realize how popular OMNI was with some posters. I just noticed one FTer that has posted 170 times there, just today. That's just something you won't see on any of the travel forums, combined, by any poster in a single day. I can see why OMNI gets the post count it does with that amount of posting taking place.

Going by tom911's post it seems like the "post limits per day" feature wasn't in effect earlier today, but some other features are now alive -- including the nifty idea that is the "Similar Threads" feature.

Well seeing you asked my thoughts (;) ) they always have been crystal clear on OMNI from the day I joined FT.

My thoughts are there on the years old thread that cblaisd posted above, and remain the same. Sex/politics/religion I have always felt were not wise subject matter on a travel board. There are a MILLION other board for folks to get into either if they choose.

Tom911 makes good points above - if OMNI gets more posts than UA these days, the plot has been lost on a mission statement for FT very possibly?

OMNI existing ensures more raw page views and visits - YES .. good for BB rating, and banner ad impressions etc, but in the longer term does it dilute what FT was started for ... and is best at?

I have no doubt in my mind that it will veer FT away from what attracted many of us here. @:-)

I am sure the NYSE records can tell us about companies that diversified from their successful core business, only later to regret it. :D

This can't be repeated enough.

Those are the people I call "posting machines." I'm not sure who you're talking about, but I can guess that it's someone repeating the same thing over & over & over or attempting to brow beat someone.

These are the types of posters causing the problem in Omni, not those who want to actually have a discussion.

BTW - it could also be someone posting in the game thread, but my guess is that it's not.

Well, those three problems are interrelated, aren't they? At least in the case under discussion?

As I went back and re-read some of this material, something struck me when I read this:

Note that they do not say "Wow! This guy really is Flailey, like so many members have been saying for so long!" It is apparent to me that both these moderators are convinced that f9999 was Flailey, and that they had been convinced for some time. Their level of proof had been met for months. That they were waiting for more proof before proceding implies that someone higher up on the food chain was insisting on more proof. Now, "Finally!", they have it. This, by the way, was my understanding from other sources of the situation.

So, we have a case in which not only many members but also moderators are convinced that this is our worst offender ever (IMO) reincarnated, but still we allow him to post for months. What We Will Do To Protect Members of FlyerTalk apparently does not include banning the reincarnations of this individual when moderators are convinced that he has re-registered, instead allowing him to post until a high standard of proof has been met. In view of the nature of the offenses of this former member (recapped here for your edification), I would have had a lower level of proof in this case.

Failing that, IMO, a clemency program does not seem needed on FT, as banned members can simply re-register and post away for months, even after moderators are convinced that that is what is happening, until they slip up and meet a very high standard of proof ("Finally!"). The maximum penalty for this appears to be getting the new personna banned.

You have had your time to comment about clemency and in the mean while get a very logical explanation of how we go about things. Your apparent burden of proof is a lot more liberal than the standards we have established for our volunteer Moderators. As i have stated, we will not go about with random witch hunts just because a member says they used the word "Meta." Which is apparently what i read you were suggesting. For the facts, that word has been used on 367 threads (I did the research) and I hope you're not suggesting that I interrupt the personal time of our volunteers to harass perhaps 366 members who used the word but were not F999 or Flailey. As well, i think I read where you say that you never reported this member as being Flailey. Seems to me that for someone so damm interested in this one member, you really can't provide us with anything that would have helped.

Anyway, so i spend a few hours pouring through nearly 10,000 PMs to see where this massive plan to assist FlyerTalk out a possible re-registered banned member. A member that you now seem to admit we really could not technically have prevented doing. Well, in all the 10,000 PMs i have, i found only a single one in which a member said anything about a link between F9999 and Flailey. That's right, a single one. And here's that PM:
"So about two dozen fellow AA FTers have figured out that Flailey STILL posts on the AA forums under that handle f9999. Are any of the mods aware as well? Several of us have made innuendos about publicly it, and other FTers have been so bold as to email him directly about it. This is substantial private email correspondence on the topic, and I am charged with this inquiry."

Heck of a lot to go on here, huh? I mean where do we start since there is so much evidence in this single PM that alerts the Mods. This is all we had to go on. Now, we'd look pretty silly if every time we got something like this we immediately pulled the plug on the member. BTW, this came in on Aug. 31.

Since we can't change the past and you seem to be more rabid about the Moderators, let's look at the response the moderator made:
"There won't be any speculation on my part unless there is evidence. If there has been TOS violations by f9999, please let moderators know and we'll address it on a case-by-case basis.
An "inquiry" by you or other FT members into what is essentially an accuation of a TOS violation is inappropriate. All members have the presumption of innocence.
Sincerely,
Joe (aka Plato90s)"

Seems like a nice responsible and reasonable reply. And what we do know is that this moderator did respond by building a positive case over the following months and did eventually ban the member, even though, there were no apparent violations of the TOS by this new member, nor was there anything in this PM that provided our volunteers with anything positive to go on. And as I mentioned above, your idea it was something to do with using the word "Meta" seems a bit heavy handed.

Actually, this volunteer moderator did a huge amount of work, chasing down and matching almost every single 400+ posts this member made to prove a positive match - nothing based upon the use of a single word. In fact, the positive proof came in the way this member used a 92 word post.

Actually, the member who did provide us with the single PM regarding this possible duplicate member account did ask if this was the type of positive proof we require in this statement:
"Or if you are truly concerned about this. What evidence would meet your level of probable cause or even reasonable suspicion?
*His work email used to register?
*Using the same grammar and distinctive vocabulary?
* Or some other smoking gun?"

The fact remains that they did do quite a bit of research, and while you don't seemed to be pleased with the timing, I'm very sure that i personally appreciated the approximately 25 personal hours this member and others spent on this, hours they took out of their personal lives. Hours that are unpaid. You may not appreciate the professional and through approach they took, but as the facts have emerged well after this incident, I am very thankful that when the actual (not assumed or heresay – vasantn and IceTrojan) facts are presented and the efforts of the moderators are actually displayed, we see efforts we all should be quite proud of.

Now if you don't mind, I'd like to go back and work on things that will help FlyerTalk be a great community for members to talk travel in.

And one more thing - please don't try and put words in my mouth that have not been offered. I did not and have not said that it is OK for a member to re-register after being banned as long as they behave. That is nowhere in any of my statements, though you seem to be trying to make it out that i said it. What I have said all along, is that we as Moderators will not make our #1 job on FlyerTalk to be headhunters. We will not actively seek out and harass other members without cause and when there is on occasion reason to do so, we will do so in a through and professional manner, seeking beyond a reasonable doubt, cause for any action.

I hope I make myself clear and I am assuming you may disagree but this part of the conversation is over.

I really dont want to dive too far into this "dog fight" but I have been following it. And I see people griping (not just the above two) about how many daily post counts someone has, particularly in Omni, and I just have to ask...SO WHAT. Lets say I post 500 times in Omni today, how is that hurting you? Why does it matter???? As long as those posts all meet the guidelines of TOS what is the big honking deal that makes this worth Randy or anyone's time? It seems like there are a lot of things on FT that could use attention, but this just doesnt seem like a valid one. If you dont like what someone posts, put them on ignore and that is that. Why is this even an issue?

In Defense of Omni
 

I know this is way OT of the title of this thread, but since we seem to be on this road and the discussion includes the uselessness of OMNI, limiting posts and so on....

I think often the benefit of OMNI is lost in the BS of OMNI. First of all after a while on FT, the airline/hotel threads do become rather repetitive, like to admit it or not, you can only read so many threads about upgrades, credit cards, surly flight attendants and so on. There are moments of excitement, like the current merger-mania but overall it becomes very stable and for lack of a better word, at times, boring.

Yet I am still a frequent traveller, I am still stuck in hotels at night with little to do and I still want to interact with my friends on FT and be part of the community...OMNI gives some of us that!!!!! (as do some other places like the Lounge threads in some forums). It gives us a place to still be part of FT, be it the games or even a stupid religion debate. It is a home for those of us on the road who arent getting as much from the travel forums education wise anymore.

I genuinely feel that limiting posts in Omni, closing Omni or some of the other options I have seen will NOT have the desired effects of driving people back to the "travel based" forums, but instead will require us/them to find new sites to hang out on to find that time killer/home when on the road. And maybe that is the desire of HOM, although I have to believe/hope it isnt.

Tom911 above said FT was to support travellers, I would challenge you all to open your minds a little wider to some of that support being about what we do to keep our sanity when we are on the road and away from home in strange cities and Omni is a piece of that....for a lot of FT'ers "it is a place where everyone knows your name!!!"

Lehava, your last two posts are dead right on as far as I'm concerned, and just flower with common sense.

Lehava and Jailer:
I would hope you understand that the issue is not gemaine to OMNI in the way you might think. The whole issue starts with those members - and there are many of them - who do not subscribe to the same options you put forth, that is, Ignore User, and don't read a thread that is outside of your interest and participation in a topic.

You ask, "how is that hurting you?" In reality, it hurts FlyerTalk quite a bit in the amount of time and effort it takes to investigate each and every Report Bad Post in OMNI. As with the prior question, I did do some research and don't mind sharing that with you.

In 2005, despite the forum being closed for a short time, I received 329 Report Bad Posts just for OMNI. In 2006, that statistic rose to 437 Report Bad Posts. Now, only 23% of the time did i take some action, not always on the board, usually behind the scenes with individual members. But in pretty much 90% of those 437 reports last year, i had to go into OMNI and read through many times a very long thread to get the gist of what was going on within that thread, who might have made the key post that led it to being off-topic. The average time of doing so - about 5 minutes. So 5 minutes times 437 instances. I think that is over 36 hours devoted to that task. Over a year that really isn't that much, but it certainly is time I'd have liked to devote to more pleasant things that putting on my striped shirt. Granted, most of the time I don't take any action, preferring to let things sort themselves out. But that does not mean it is ignored. The biggest challenge is that what one person seems as a violation as a TOS or a name calling or other, may not be seen that way by myself or others. Then beyond the RBP we have to dialogue of why or why not we see it differently. That is even more time consuming than anything. And as for what does it hurt? Well, what about members who feel insulted and then fight back rather than use the system. Doesn't it hurt them? They may earn a suspension or other action. And what about the times when threads turn racist (an individual member posts something perceived as racist) and the damage done to FlyerTalk as it may or may not reflect on FlyerTalk. True, we did not make that statement, but it is on FlyerTalk. And for times like that, well, the only way to get better at that is to patrol OMNI 24/7 in real time rather than the reactive method we use now. Who's going to fund that? Are you prepared to pony up the kind of money it would take to man patrols 24/7? Likely not. So the current system works fairly well. We allow dialogue to generally serve its own needs and to allow a fairly liberal playing field, choosing only to interject when members play the racist card, interject politics into threads that are normal Q/A about consumer advice, etc. or think that they will truly be able to convert a Republican into a Democrat or a Democrat into a Republican and all in the name of something that will never be.

The idea of limiting posts on OMNI, is not for the general member that does enjoy and contributes to a normal conversation. It is for those who are often the subject of the 437 RBP. BTW, the 437 was a 32% increase from the year before.

Question is, would you devote nearly a week of work to a single forum on FlyerTalk, not for the purpose of contributing and enjoying, but just to read and referee? I do it because i am committed to FlyerTalk, but the bummer is that it hurts me a lot because it takes all the time that i would have liked to use personally to enjoy FlyerTalk - just like you do.

Anyway, i hope this helps understand it is less about OMNI as a vibrant forum on FlyerTalk and more about some of its members, and using the Ignore User button does not seem to be an option.

Snipped for continuity....

Randy,

I simply don't understand why you don't treat OMNI like any other forum and appoint moderators instead of leaving the work to yourself and senior moderators. I am certain there are some people who post on OMNI regularly who behave themselves and don't have bad post reports sent about them who you could count on to do this work for you.

As someone who loves FT and follows about 5 travel forums and having received a lot of good information from them, limiting OMNI is not going to improve FT, in my view.

(And, an aside....I see just as much vile rhetoric thrown around in Travel Safety and Security, but that's never seen as a problem. And that board's visible and available to all.)

I can't say it better than Lehava has, although I did say the exact same thing (less eloquently) when I was running for TalkBoard. I came for the miles and point and stay for the people and community. If you limit or eliminate OMNI or any of the other non-point/mile forums, many good people are going to come by less and less.

And is that a good thing? Suppose a person posts 90% to OMNI. But that 1 post in 10 is to an airline forum and that person steps up and helps a member with something. Eliminating the 9 posts in 10 may mean that person doesn't come by as often -- maybe once a week or month to see what's new in their favorite programs, instead of daily.

If it's the traffic that's the problem, well, I can appreciate that from a technical perspective. But if it's the reputation of FT and the amount of work placed on the HOM, well, it's already a closed board that requires time and posts to view, so the only people seeing and posting in OMNI are already FT members. And the work can always be delegated.

--Rich

Interesting info. I didn't realize that OMNI had required so much more work in the timeframe since I've no longer been actively posting there (i.e., stopped around two years ago) than when I used to frequent it.

Moderating OMNI has been done before by volunteer moderators, but it resulted in at least some moderator churn IIRC.

More facts. Actually, we have had moderators in OMNI in the past and have burned them all out. The abuse a moderator gets from OMNI as well as the time it takes really takes it's toll. After seeing the burnout rate there, I opted to try and do it myself because i simply have too much respect for those members that were donating an escalating amount of their personal lives to this effort. I didn't view it as fair to them. Again, this points out just how different OMNI may look to some of our members who only see it through their eyes, not the eyes of others. As GU notes above, most if not all members really have no idea of what it takes to make FlyerTalk work the way it does. Hopefully by hearing of some of these efforts, a few members will appreciate a bit more what they have.

I hope this topic does not alarm anyone. We have no plans to change OMNI overnight and may not likely make any changes at all. But it is nice to "take the temperature" once and a while.

Randy, I do appreciate the information you shared. But please dont find it offensive that I find statistics in general to be very manipulatable, particularly when given on their own. You say that the NUMBER of BPR's went up based on the number from the year before, but how does that match with the total number of posts in the forum for the year change, did the percentage of BPR's out of the whole posts really change that much????? Also you didnt compare the number/percentage of bad post reports there to those in the travel forums either.

You dont need to go find all these numbers, I know you are busy, but my point is you can make anything look bad by showing numbers in isolation (first thing they teach you in any statistics class). 437 bad posts could be a bad thing if you only have 500 posts, but if you have 500,000,000 it is a real great percentage!!!!

And as RichMSN points out, my guess is that if we looked at percentages the security forum draws as high if not higher a percentage. To which I am sure the answer will be but that is travel based, but because it is travel based and isnt supposed to be as controversial as OMNI the fact of out badly behaved that forum is should, in my opinion, be a lot more worrysome to the HOM!!!!!! I know personally I find visiting that forum a lot more offensive than I do OMNI.

Another thought, if there are a massive number of BPR's is someone analyzing who is instigating the reports, is the problem the reporters trying to get people in trouble vs the posts?

Finally, I also agree that more moderators should be used in OMNI, with the understanding they are rotated out and do short "tours of duty" since it is a tough forum. If each moderator spent a month a year at the most on that forum it would be a lot less hard to take. Almost like a dr in a hospital having to do their monthly on call at the ER, it stinks, they all hate it, but they do it once a year as part of their job. And yes I know the, they are volunteers bit, but I was a volunteer chat room moderator on AOL and we all had to take our shot at the message boards even if we didnt enjoy it.

As I have said already, I know OMNI is not like petting puppies and takes work, but I think it has a lot more value to the FT community than it is given credit for, including by Randy!!!!

Excluding BPRs related to posts by those with fewer than 180 posts --particularly as those FTers with less than 180 posts don't actively post in OMNI -- what's the ratio of BPRs out of total postings in the travel forums vs. the ratio of BPRs out of total postings in OMNI? While such numbers (and more) would be interesting, even that isn't necessarily the best measure or matrix of measures to understand what transpires here.

In any event, that is, percentages and ratios might not say it all. In other words, I wouldn't be surprised if, with some notable exceptions, OMNI BPRs take more time to investigate and address than non-OMNI BPRs.

Figures available or not, OMNI has certainly eaten up a lot of moderator time and moderators --especially as some people (in OMNI and outside of OMNI) don't know how to have a clean discussion without engaging in personal attacks and/or engaging in discussions of FTers; that is some have trouble addressing the content in the posts in that particular thread and instead resort to a make-work program for moderators and others.

Ditto for the security forum!

Has there been as much moderator churn with Travel Safety & Security in the period between 2001 and today as there has been with OMNI?

Regardless, compared to OMNI, TS&S generally has more (or ought to have more) to do with travel.

Randy, thanks for your thoughtful replies, which put an operational spin on the issue.

Certainly, all the people posting on this thread are grateful for FT as a resource. That this frequent flyer treasure trove would morph into such a robust social network is something that even you might not have predicted; such is the nature of offspring. And I must admit, although I enjoy OMNI, I would not trade all (or even many of) the miles, trips and upgrades I have gleaned from FT to keep OMNI from the chopping block. Call me pragmatic.

Frivolity aside (i.e., Letters of Marque and Indulgences), I suspect all posters on this thread share your desire for a FT that is not so labor intensive that it becomes onerous for you and the moderators to manage.

You could build a higher wall around OMNI (100+ posts and be a paid subscriber) and then take a laissez-faire approach and let OMNI be moderator-free, allowing a free-for-all of ideas. I do appreciate, however, that you would hate to have your name associated with the bullying behavior and ethnic and discriminatory slurring that might ensue, so likely there would have to be some hard and fast rules whereby certain language gets someone kicked off OMNI, or even FT. Perhaps a search and destroy component of the software could be employed.

In a sense, OMNI is a loss-leader. Or, thinking about the bad old days of regulation, it’s like the unprofitable routes that airlines had to fly in order to have the right (sometimes monopolistic) to fly certain other more lucrative routes.

Not that you are under any obligation to provide the OMNI lounge, but as Lehava eloquently alluded, OMNI often knits the social fabric and keeps many members engaged who otherwise might have wandered elsewhere. And, honestly, I appreciate the diverse views that OMNI provides...FT is a very worldly and intellectual watering hole.

Putting a positive spin, it must be gratifying to you that so many people are willing to volunteer their time for FT's betterment and that we armchair philosophers are eager to weigh in regarding the best direction for your creation (even if you haven’t asked for any opinions).

I'm going to close this thread because there are other threads that also would like my thoughts. I think there's enough here for most and at least the original question was researched and answered.

Part of the reason to close the thread is that the thread has become OMNI itself. It seems that now i have to go back and qualify the stats for RBP for OMNi and do a statistic analysis, etc. I apologize, but really i think my time available to FlyerTalk is best spent on helping out the general membership of FlyerTalk. Something I enjoy and usually i don't have to get drawn into some analysis paralysis. Suffice it to say, there are some members in OMNI that will have some of their posting privileges curtailed because they fail to meet the "play nice with others" doctrine on FlyerTalk and elsewhere in the world. All other members, please continue to enjoy the casual community spirit of FlyerTalk – whatever the topic.