Clemency Program?
 

A member asked me a question in private as they didn't want their user name viewed online. They then asked if I would post the question on their behalf.

Question: Essentially the question was to do with a FlyerTalk clemency program. They knew a member who for whatever reason had a streak earlier in their "career" on FlyerTalk which ended when they were permanently suspended. They and the former member do admit that some of that members actions weren't probably the most appropriate for what it seems FlyerTalk is trying to do. And wanted to know if we have ever considered a clemency program to allow former members back in if they promise better behavior.

Answer: Actually, FlyerTalk does have a clemency program in place. The idea was championed by the volunteer moderators and and is currently part of the members TOS. That policy is here:
Reinstatement
Not less than six months after revocation of membership, the former member may request reinstatement. The member shall address that request to the administrator at [email protected] and set forth a concise statement identifying fairly the date and grounds of revocation and the basis for seeking reinstatement. If the request is denied, a later request for reinstatement may not be made until at least one additional year has passed, unless the decision denying reinstatement sets forth a shorter time period.

To date I have "pardoned" a few members and likewise, have "ignored" a few members. FlyerTalk is not a game of in-and-out whereby members can simply choose to disrupt the flow of information among its members or play cute games of "posse." Each action should carry a consequence and it does. In the area of clemency, I'd suggest you have this former member look up this reinstatement policy in the current TOS and if they are truly committed to what the goals of the membership of FlyerTalk are, follow the guidelines for the request.

Among some that have applied, it is everything i can do to not want to reach out and straggle them. It's the, "Randy I want back in. So-and-so deserved the flaming i did on them and if not for that i'd still be on FlyerTalk." For the "devil made me do it" crown, i have little or no sympathy. No one can really cause you to be a total ... in public - only you. Most of us know that and don't make it an issue. Bottom line, if you can't take responsibility for your actions coming back in, then I'm sure we'll be seeing you go back out as well.

Bottom line: A clemency program does exist on FlyerTalk for those members who can commit to the standards the community has established.

Randy,

Might I suggest that those that have life granted to them again, not be allowed into restricted forums until they pass the 90/180 day rule that is currently in place for 'new' members of Flyertalk. I would hope that those granted clemency, would contribute to the topics concerning us most, miles and points.

Dan

For every aphorism there is an equal and opposite aphorism;

"a stitch in time saves nine" vs. "haste makes waste"
Too many to list.

However; IMHO-- in this case-- the adage:
"A leopard never changes it's spots"
Will-- again MHO-- prove to be the case each and every time.

No member here is unreplaceable-- even the most knowledge and helpful ones (and personally I doubt that's who we're talking about.)

If someone repeatedly violates the TOS and is permanently suspended, they usually have been given many opportunities to start over with a clean slate and have gone right back to the behavior that got them in trouble in the first place.

I personally have been repeatedly and viciously attacked by certain members, so I don't post on FT anymore as a result. And yet, FT goes on strong as ever.

IMHO, we need more disciplining of serial, recidivist disruptors-- not less.

de leted

I was just going through Omni and was feeling a little discusted about things in general on FT and then came upon this thread. Originally, I joined because of my love for flying and wanted to be a part of a group that shared those feelings. Randy, I think you did a fine job when you set up this site including the rules you and moderators have put in place. I doubt it would have lasted this long otherwise.
I too have received a couple of nasty and somewhat threatening pms from members. Kind of shocked and surprised at first, but then realized that's just the way things are sometimes in the world.
Have to admit that I probably should have been suspended myself a couple of times for posts made and was grateful when I just received a stern reminder of how to behave.
I think FT is managed very well and just wanted to thank those responsible for creating and keeping it available. It's still the best site for travel info.
Interesting stuff about clemency. Was just wondering the other day how that part of the site was set up after noticing someone had disappeared. Coincidentally, one member that got suspended recently had it happen just days after he had pm'd me with something not too pleasant. Chalked it up to karma.
I guess my point is that I've got a lot of respect for the creator(s) of FT and hope it continues to be a source of travel knowledge for many years.
Tom

As one who has benefited from the Randy's clemency "program", I'd have to disagree with JonNYC that people cannot change.

I am not proud of the fact that I received a "Lifetime" ban. I am, however VERY proud of the fact that I have not been suspended since my reinstatement.

I do agree wholeheartedly with JonNYC that "we need more disciplining of serial, recidivist disruptors". My solution to that problem is this:

If someone is lucky enough to receive "clemency", they should be on a ZERO tolerance lifetime probation. One suspension and they are out with no more chances. In my opinion it is a HUGE slap in Randy's face for the recipient of "clemency" to continue to rack up suspensions.

Just my humble opinion.

I hope that there would be a category of offenses that would disqualify someone for ever being considered for clemency. For example, in my time on FT, I have seen members maliciously post private information -- full names, addresses, etc. -- of other FTers. IMHO, this is far more severe than just being a serial troll or serial attacker. I have no interest in seeing those people ever return, no matter how much they claim to have reformed themselves.

It doesn't seem like there are a lot of individuals permanently banned/suspended from FT. And some of those individuals who were permanently banned/suspended are back through the "clemency" noted in the OP or seem to get back onto FT by ignoring FT rules. Comparing the two, those who have gotten "clemency" -- whether asking for it themselves or not??? -- seem more likely to be better contributors to FT, post-banning, than a banned individual with a new reincarnation on FT.

I agree.

Randy, here’s a bold business plan for 2007: sell Indulgences.

Popes did, so why shouldn’t you?

Much of the cost of building St. Peter’s was paid for by Indulgences, so maybe you are thinking that the House of Miles could use a remodel, perhaps a Duomo or a frequent flyer baptism fount?

Normally I would charge big bucks for this kind of 16th Century business innovation. But, for you: special deal. All I want is a lifetime Indulgence, or Amnesty, as I’m likely to get cranky in my old age.

In the 1500’s Priests used to wander around Europe with a price list, so I will be emailing one to you in short order. That the sale of Indulgences was a major cause of the Schism in the Church that brought forth Protestantism should be of little worry, since if you can sell Indulgences you can also have an Inquisition.

An excellent idea... and one with solid historical backing as well !!! :D

I agree as well...one time and one time only.

Indeed. My own business plan revolves around giving away the Indulgence consulting for next to nothing, but making it up on the Inquisitional fee for service.

Lifetime is forever?
 

I had always thought that the lifetime banned people just started up new accounts, and tried to change their style a bit. I can see that there are people who get excited in the moment, and go too far, and these people deserve another chance. Then there are the people who will create as much havoc as possible for their own entertainment. Never is too soon for these folk.

Actually, I'd prefer Letters of Marque and Reprisal. :D

"I've got a little list . . . and they'd none of 'em be missed."

Of course they do. For example, our most egregious case of lifetime banned individual, Flailey, was allowed to post for months using the persona F9999, even though we all knew he was Flailey. Repeated complaints and evidence were ignored as long as possible. Finally, when it became too obviously a joke, Flailey was rebanned.

Given the extreme reluctance to ban reincarnations, I'm not sure why a clemency policy is needed.

Well I certainly have been the beneficiary, and thank Randy for his patience over the years. ^

I can think of many well known members who still contribute actively and informatively to FT after several apparent TOS infractions, and a couple of names are current mods IIRC, so it is simply not possible to generalise how folks turn out years down the track.

It seems to me things are handled by Randy on a case by case basis based on the actual issues, not the number of them. On most freeways I've driven on, most vehicles appear to be breaking the legal speed limit. And EVERY one of them knows they are doing just that.

Yet only a tiny % will get ticketed, (and they know that too) even though the "offense" is equal for all of them. No judge will revoke a license for life based on a few minor speeding tickets. Drive at 150 mph down a busy city road just once whilst drunk, and rightfully you'll not get a judge so sympathetic. It all comes down to magnitude of the infraction.

Forgive my ignorance, by why would anyone ever get banned from a great site like this? I've enjoyed my several years lurking and posting, and have gotten great advice, made friends, and learned a lot. Why would anyone be banned?

Thanks,

H*S

You haven't been to OMNI yet. Things can get pretty heated over there when the subject is not points or miles.

I think dhammer53 and Jailer made excellent suggestions.

Making someone pay to rejoin might better ensure the applicant is serious about reforming his/her ways. Keeping the paroled member off OMNI and CC temporarily might increase his/her chances of a successful reinstatement.

Jailer...the heck with selling FlyerTalk indulgences for forgiveness. You must be getting soft in your extreme old age. Next thing you'll be suggesting is braking for small animals and children that are crossing the road!

Think Mafioso. How about selling FlyerTalk "hits" instead?

Or better yet for Randy...Both!

;)

OT, but for someone from Australia to make a statement like that is amazing.

100% of the people who go even 1km/hr over the limit on the Melbourne toll roads gets a camera issued speeding ticket. I got one for going 83km/hr in a tunnel under Melbourne posted for 80 km/hr.

No place in the world uses speed cameras for revenue generation purposes better than some parts of Australia! OK, maybe Singapore as well.

Things must have changed radically within 2 years then? It used to be 96%. :eek:

"But in 2004, more than 300 actions were taken with timeouts, warnings, posting redirection and bans. Of that number, more than 96% were related to the forum we call OMNI."

posted by Randy Petersen Oct 5, 2004, when once closing OMNI for a period.

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...0&postcount=84

Going from 96% to sub-50% is quite a radical difference within two years but wouldn't necessarily shock me. Duplicate handle-related and spamming bannings have been a huge part of these numbers and almost all of that, in more recent times, has happened outside of OMNI due to structural changes with regards to OMNI access. Also, the miles & points forums had quite a lot of repeated nastiness in the past year resulting in suspensions and the like.

When you say "OMNI violations", would it be correct to read your words to mean "TOS violations in OMNI"? That's the way I'm reading it and it doesn't surprise me at all.

OZ... don't forget those suspension/banning figures probably include 1-time spammers who truly aren't members.

A better inquiry would be investigating the post counts of those receiving "suspensions".

So now it is 96 % for mentioning the "m" word? :eek:


;)

Counsellor ;

<Actually, I'd prefer Letters of Marque and Reprisal.> :D

Constitutional Scholar ??? :p ^

My guess is that you'd have to ask the member themselves. FlyerTalk doesn't ban members, members ban themselves when they simply refuse to observe the things that you have observed - the great advice, making friends and learning a lot.

Thankfully, with the changes made to OMNI, most of the banning is made to spammers.

Interesting that you suggest this as it is something i have been pondering. As I am thinking of some changes relevant to OMNI, etc. perhaps this makes sense to add into our policies. I certainly don't want this viewed as additional punishment, but really, it takes a lot to get to the perma ban. And in today's world on FT, less of it is related to OMNI flaming, but at least we are saying that if you continue to screw up, there will be some restrictions on a permanent basis to any relationship you might have in the future regarding FlyerTalk.

anyway, love to hear more of this proposal from our other members.

Thanks for the excellent observation and advise.

Thanks for confirming that Randy. I was wondering if there's any way that you could give us some statistics about how many of these suspensions/bannings for spamming there have been?

The Moderators do an amazing job at keeping this place clean and SPAM-free that it would give the general populace an idea of how much work they're doing w/o us knowing. Thanks.

Some of what is mentioned in the first paragraph above is already in place. That is "some restrictions on a permanent basis to any relationship you might have in the future regarding FlyerTalk" is already in effect in some regards; and, while I'm not 100% positive about the following yet, some of those continuing restrictions may be independent of bannings/clemency.

Actually, i just gave a report to the TalkBoard so have the current stats on hand. From March 30, 2004 to today, there have been 58,865 log entries for FlyerTalk. These are entries that the volunteer Moderators and tech team have made to correct actions of our members. Sounds like a lot, and it is. It really paints a picture of what it takes to try and make FlyerTalk a great experience for everyone. On the surface, you probably have no indication of the type of activity that occurs behind the scenes. For instance, these stats represent 1,784 actions taken monthly, or more than 60 actions taken daily.

Sorry to disappoint those that only think of the management of FlyerTalk as moderator suspensions, etc. But actually suspensions and bans for our regular members is actually a rarity. Of these actions, less than .5% have anything to do with bans and suspensions for regular member behavior. Approximately 7% are dealing with moving threads to more appropriate forums, communicating with members, etc. and the remaining 92.5% have to deal with spammers. By definition, spammers aren't just those posting commercial messages, etc. they are also members or former members who for sport like to try and disrupt FlyerTalk - somewhat affirming that they don't know how to play nice with others.

Anyway, a tremendous amount of effort goes into making FlyerTalk as pleasant as possible and I hope you can respect that without the efforts of the Moderators and our tech team, what this place would look like. Imagine almost 57 instances of disruption a day added into FlyerTalk without their help.

Bottom line: Our Moderators have kept out or taken action on 54,450 instances of spam and related garbage in just over the last 2 1/2 years on FlyerTalk.

Randy, thank you very much for highlighting and providing those statistics. ^

Interesting statement that "we all knew..." Fact is, 99% of the members of FlyerTalk likely do not know what the heck you are talking about - I know I certainly don't. As a general member myself, much like you, I really don't know that the first thing i try to do on FlyerTalk is to seek out other members and gloat over their misfortune. The purpose of FlyerTalk is to read a thread about travel, add personal experience if it is relevant and if reading someone else's question, figure out of you have enough experience with that topic to assist them.

If you are insisting or want that the first goal and priority of our moderators is to pat down every single new member and suspect that they are here to disrupt and violate the TOS, then I've got news for you - it ain't going to happen. I will not have our volunteers become thugs merely for the purpose of intimidating the more than 99.9% of our members who are here to talk travel.

And at the end of the day, what difference does it or should it make to you, unless of course you (and I am not directly this answer towards you as a member, but "you" as a general concept of a member) are one of those that loves to participate in a disruptive dialogue and love the fact that the other guy speeding got nailed.

And let's make it clear to all our members, (now I am directing this to you), this members' assertion "Given the extreme reluctance to ban reincarnations" does not in any way reflect the current and ongoing policies of FlyerTalk and certainly not that of the volunteer Moderators. I can only guess it must be his/her personal opinion and hey, he/she is certainly entitled to that.

Allow me to refresh your memory. Flailey re-registered in this particular incarnation (f9999)in May. This situation was pointed out to you in August in this thread. In addition, moderators were PM'ed repeatedly of the return of Flailey, and moderators deleted many posts (probably a hundred or more) pointing out that this was, in fact, Flailey. In response to PMs, at least one Moderator responded that they had called this situation to your attention, but that you had not elected to do anything about it for the time being. This former member's actions were so egregious that you cited him as an example of the lengths to which you would go to protect your members from him in this thread. Yet, FT allowed him to re-register and post for many months, despite many members pointing out that this was a re-register of perhaps our worst offender ever (if he isn't, he is certainly among 'em). Finally, around November IIRC, he was suspended again.
I don't "seek out other members and gloat over their misfortune" - however, considering the extreme nature of this particular member's transgressions, I did not see any reason to allow him to re-register and participate in FT, which is, of course, exactly what was allowed to occur.

I'm not in favor of moderators being thugs either. However, in this case, it was so blatantly obvious from speech, references, and posting patterns that this was the re-registration of one of our worst offenders ever, lots of members were able to see it. Still, he remained on FT, racking up 405 posts over 6 months or more.

Well, I didn't start a thread to berate you about this, or even post in one. In this thread, I thought we were discussing granting pardons to those who have received lifetime bans. I posted my opinion that it was not necessary, if we were going to allow those persons to re-register and post away for an extended period. You may (and obviously do) disagree, but my opinion is still my opinion. I thought you started this thread to provide information and get feedback. I'm sorry if my feedback is not what you were expecting.
Obviously, it is my personal opinion. I have not sought out other members to ask their opinions. You may not feel that allowing a reincarnation to stay on FT for 6 months despite many complaints during that entire period does not constitute extreme reluctance to ban, but it is difficult for me to characterize it otherwise.

Randy I very seldom visit OMNI but didn't you also put some policy into place one time, where anyone who got too heated there got restricted to just 3 or 4 posts a day until they calmed down?

'Rule 27' or something hing like that I think you termed it? I recall reading about it once and thought that seemed to be a good choker on any political/religious rants etc. Is that still in place?

It did not appear to result in any time-out ban, per se, but stifled repeated posts, which often might serve a useful purpose. ^

Your understanding of the way FlyerTalk works and reality are a far distance apart. In this quote, you insist that FlyerTalk allowed him to re-register. Uh, are you suggesting that we erect a great wall around FlyerTalk and not let anyone in until they have passed a background check by the TSA or submit a drivers license and credit card? The reason I say that is because i just checked the background of how F999 was allowed to register on FlyerTalk.

First of all, the member uses a dynamic IP address and during his time on FlyerTalk accessed this Web sis through 27 different IP addresses - none of which matched any IP addresses that Flailey used. We could track F999 to the same IP address that was sued by members "Track" and "TerryK" but I'm sure it would not have been a very good idea to start hasseling those members because of a similar IP address that was dynamic in nature. Now, F999 used yahoo.com as his email contact, certainly not using Failey in the preface to the email address. Flailey used gmail.com as his email provider.

So now you know the facts. You tell me with something I can believe, how the heck FlyerTalk could have prevented F999 from registering. There are absolutely no connections in the two items we could have used in which members provide us upon registering. Aren't you asking a heck of a lot from us?

As for allowing him to post. From all accounts, this member was a good poster. Courteous and polite and helpful. Here's an example of one of his posts I grabbed at random:

Quote:
Originally Posted by popcorn6
Has anyone ever completed the 90 Day Challenge at AA to earn Gold or Platinum Status?

Posted by F999
Thousands. Go to the search tab above, hit "advanced" search and do a search for "challenge" limited to the AA forum for lots of info. Be careful of the sticky there and the "fewmiles" site as it's out of date slightly.

There's more info here as well:
http://www.flyertalk.com/wiki/index....rican_Airlines


We could do a heck of a lot worse with our members than someone like this who was very helpful to another member. The facts are such, that of the 450 posts you refer to, none of them really set off any radar of abusive behavior to warrant any inspection and one might say, with posts like this we should have given him a medal.


I'm still stuck on your insistence that I or the moderators should have kicked this guy out right away once you sent a note it was him. Your reference to "blatantly obvious from speech, references, and posting patterns" reminds me of a wiretap program without warrants. Again, I am confident that I in no way am interested in FlyerTalk becoming this. Now, your assertions that you or some others members sent emails to Moderators alerting them to this. Accusations by one member against another is simply not enough proof to expel someone. you may think it works that way, but I'm not about to let loose the hounds to convict every member on FlyerTalk that someone wants to accuse them of. A witch hunt if ever I saw one. Rather than take actions just on someone's say so, our diligent moderator staff finally did suspend that members - the member that for 450 posts did a fairly good job of respecting the TOS of FlyerTalk and helping other members. But he did get busted and why? Simple, the never resting Moderators were finally able to get the proof of posting pattern. The post in which they banned the member for was an exact same post of something that Failey posted previously.

The mods involved posted this in their notes to the suspension:
Plato90s:
Posted exactly same text as previously banned poster Flailey
JDiver:
Finally! The proof we needed to "out" Flailey in his (presumably) more tolerant, contributive guise.

It sure doesn't look like they ever rested or averted their eyes, Rather, it looks like they did something that I think many members of flyerTalk would be proud of - they were not goaded into banning another member from peer pressure or heresay or inconclusive evidence, no they member had action taken against him for actual facts.

While it may not be what you were looking for with your posts, I thank you for the opportunity to again show off just how professional our volunteer staff of moderators are and how factually they are truly dedicated to helping FlyerTalk be a great place to talk travel. You may have wanted earlier action, but honestly, do you want a FlyerTalk where actions are taken without proof and facts, just someone's say so? And we got lucky in this one, the member in question, F999 did actually add value to FlyerTalk, as in the example above.

As for me, yes, i know you posted something for me to look at, but you failed to notice that i never responded which likely means i got on to something else - FlyerTalk does that to you sometimes.

Good memory and you are correct. Fact is, it was a hollow plea to members to be a bit more graceful in their interactions. I actually did not have the software capabilities for such.

But, starting next week we will have that function in place and will be able to restrict number of posts made on a daily basis into particular forums.

Which actually gives me a chance to ask you and perhaps others for their thoughts.

My main worry of OMNI is how some members who posted their first 500 times in forums involving travel and miles and points and the last 500 posts are all in OMNI, or at least 495 of them are in OMNI. We now have a number of members who post in OMNI 90 percent or better of their posts. FlyerTalk never started to be a place where your opinions were to be like prize fights. But it does happen. The only way i can think of making it easy on us that have to referee, is to place some limits on certain members ability to champion the political and other dialogue. Hey, I'm proud that we have some intelligent members, but i just can't get in to being proud that they really know the libs vs. the neo cons (is this correct guys?) but haven't helped anyone lately with what really makes FlyerTalk valuable.

Should we really care? Should OMNI be open to everyone? Should OMNI be closed to sex, religion and politics? The funny thing is that the other day i happened to research one of the members of OMNI who had posted their thoughts that politics should be banned - i think it must have been lip service because an audit of their posting revealed that 73% of their posts were in OMNI and an overwhelming number were in threads dealing with politics.

But the bottom line is that i am only trying to limit the dialogue that puts more work load on those if us that have clean up duty - such as our Senior mods and myself.

Gee-- I don't see the word "moderator" under my name. :)
http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthrea...62#post6659062