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.