In my job I have attended over 500 conferences with Moderators. Usually they are people of eminence, accepted by their peers as equal or superior, moderate in their view points, moderate with great care and perspicacity and never hurt the participants feelings.

I do expect the same from Flyertalk moderators, otherwise I feel it is waste of my time to post anything.

[This message has been edited by drbala (edited 08-12-2001).]

You answer your own question.

If you don't care for the ground rules (that is, the moderators) of this electronic conference, you should exercise your option not to participate. You can either find another conference better suited to your needs, or you can organize and run your own.

I would assume that if I organized a non-electronic conference and you either didn't care for the speakers or the format, you would simply choose not to attend. I'd be surprised if you showed up and disrupted the conference, complaining that it didn't suit you.

So it's unsettling that you choose to continue to disrupt this electronic conference with your complaints. This conference is not a government-given right; your de facto usufruct to participate in this conference does not include the right to disrupt. Accept the rules or elect not to participate.

I agree with wideman 100%

Myintention is not to disrupt but to seek justice. Why is that just one moderator has got all these negative comments? I am not the sole person to rise against this attitude; a number of people have voiced their stronger opinions.

I'm also 100% with wideman on this one, especially given that drbala has started a similar thread in this very forum:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum1/HTML/005009.html

And what is meant by "justice"?

[This message has been edited by blairvanhorn (edited 08-12-2001).]

I'm suprised that this thread hasn't been closed already, seeing as it has nothing to do with miles and points.... :-)

[QUOTE]Originally posted by blairvanhorn:
[b]I'm also 100% with wideman on this one, especially given that drbala has started a similar thread in this very forum:"

I'm not sure we really need another thread on this, with two active threads here, but she obviously feels very frustrated and attacked, and is looking to expand the discussion as much as possible.

But I don't agree with Wideman and JonNYC that drbala is actually disrupting anything, as opposed to recommending an alternative approach regarding the future use of moderators.

It is not like she is standing up and screaming in the middle of a one-hour conference, whereby no one else can get any work done: she is commenting on policies that relate to the daily, on-going operation of this site, or more expansively, the "life" of this FT community.

Are you guys really saying this is/should be such a closed, dictatorial environment that people shouldn't be allowed to suggest alternatives/improvements?

Shouldn't the opposite be the case: shouldn't the powers that be invite and encourage suggestions?


[This message has been edited by nologic (edited 08-12-2001).]

give the moderator a few hours, it will be shut down.

In my opinion:

- The moderators are respected members. Furthermore they have been chosen by Randy who owns this forum.

- The job of the moderators is a thankless job, and it is impossible to please everyone.

I don't see anything wrong with moving threads as per the terms of conditions. It is ok to debate how modearation should be done, but it is counterproductive to launch attacks on the moderators.

PG,

I certainly agree with your statement and hope none of the moderators feel attacked personally, in that they are enforcing the policies, as I understand them to be charged to do. Most of us are addressing the policies themselves, not the moderators.

Some have probably been frustrated, or yes even angered, by the tone of some the moderator�s responses and apparent inflexibility, which I suspect came off more dramatic due to email/wording than intended, and possibly a little defensive in that he may have felt a little attacked personally.

But the vast majority of the comments on these subjects address the policies and the current implementation of the policies with a non-personal intent.

I have to stand up for the moderators. There was a lot of noise from many people on FT who voiced their opinions to have Randy set up moderators. He listened and now we have moderators. Now we have the other side who apparently feels that the moderators have too much power. They can't win for losing.

I personally have met all three of the moderators and they are all longtime members in very good standing within this community. They are not here to slight anyone but are just trying to keep the board organized. They all have regular jobs in the real world that they attend to besides this which surely pays much more that this.

My personal opinion is that if you don't like the moderators or the job that they are doing, then send a private email to Randy stating your problem with them, stop posting, or simply leave FT and start your own board.

The above is just my 2 cents!

Who's leading this revolt? I agree with wideman, JonNYC, PG, etc...
We're only guests here. Moderators are required to keep some order. Randy has confidence in his moderators and that is enough for me.

By continuing to post off-topic complaints in this forum you demonstrate the need for moderators.

It would appear as if most of those who are against moderators are the ones who can not post in the correct place and start flame wars. So, learn to read the instructions, be a nice person and you will not have problems with moderators. This subject just amazes me, more complaints about moderators, from the people who seem to need to be moderated the most!