Question 2: Palatable Moderation
Nov 11, 2007, 5:42 am
#76
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
And for MSNRich's benefit: I'm not going to encourage people to vote for me in support of a premise I cannot possibly impact while on the Talkboard. I fail to understand, from a pragmatic standpoint, why anyone would. I understand the politics of the move, but I guess I'm more concerned with improving Flyertalk rather than doing a political dance.....
You run the way you want to and I'll run the way I want to. I'm entitled, just as you are. Whether or not I actually get the votes, I'm running the campaign I want and will not be shamed into turning into every other candidate. Just like the signature below says....
Nov 11, 2007, 7:24 am
#77
Suspended
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,690
Neither Hunki nor I have ever violated the TOS. We are both charming and polite old people who believe in fair and honest government, including moderation. Yet, in spite of our 100% positive contributions to FT, we have both been issued lifetime bans, which were, (Praise God overturned by Randy), for no valid reason, without ever once receiving an e-mail to discuss our supposed breaches or one of those much touted warnings.
Go figure.
It is entirely possible that we are aberrations and the only folks on FT who have ever been victims of unscrupulous moderators, but that is what happened to us, and that is the truth.
Talkboard needs to make sure that this type of arbitratry banning never happens again.
Go figure.
It is entirely possible that we are aberrations and the only folks on FT who have ever been victims of unscrupulous moderators, but that is what happened to us, and that is the truth.
Talkboard needs to make sure that this type of arbitratry banning never happens again.
Last edited by Punki; Nov 11, 2007 at 12:06 pm Reason: typo
Nov 11, 2007, 7:55 am
#78
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Nov 11, 2007, 8:12 am
#79
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
Posts: 3,099
This thread shows how sorry this election has become when the only thing that certain folk want to debate is moderators and their actions.
I voiced my concern at the start of this election debate at the way it was going within the first few posts, now I am actually sick of the whole thing with it certainly turning into a "THEM & US" debate.
A lot of this election seems to be based on hatred be it of people or the system.
Its also very sad indeed to see that not every person standing has bothered to answers any of the questions being raised.
I voiced my concern at the start of this election debate at the way it was going within the first few posts, now I am actually sick of the whole thing with it certainly turning into a "THEM & US" debate.
A lot of this election seems to be based on hatred be it of people or the system.
Its also very sad indeed to see that not every person standing has bothered to answers any of the questions being raised.
Nov 11, 2007, 8:41 am
#80
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
If there was any upside to this thread and the other one on moderation, they were both far and away the top threads in terms of viewership.
Whether that means folks are concerned about moderation or they just like watching a train wreck, at least the threads got some eyeballs into an otherwise sleepy forum.
Whether that means folks are concerned about moderation or they just like watching a train wreck, at least the threads got some eyeballs into an otherwise sleepy forum.
Nov 11, 2007, 9:04 am
#81
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
Posts: 3,099
I firmly believe that this election has been hijacked IMHO.
Nov 11, 2007, 9:49 am
#82
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
Yes this has been a very sleep forum with a few folk trying to put forward their view on the current TB and moderators, in fact it has become rather tiresome and if I was someone looking in I would be asking what the hell is going on.
I firmly believe that this election has been hijacked IMHO.
I firmly believe that this election has been hijacked IMHO.
You make it sound as if there is a proper and improper way to run for TalkBoard, as if there are right and wrong things to say here. How can an election be hijacked? We've all answered the same questions. Are you saying that responding in a way dissimilar to other candidates is "hijacking an election?" If so, you are absolutely correct, I guess, and I won't be apologizing.
I want to be on TalkBoard. I want to represent all FT members. My platform is mine and mine alone and if enough people agree with my platform and debate points and vote for me, I will serve on TB to the best of my ability. I will work as best I can with the group, but will not be shy in trying to advance the things I've mentioned in my platform and in this debate.
If people really don't want someone like me on TalkBoard, I will not win. That would be fine. I'll put next November on my reminder calendar, then, and run again.
Nov 11, 2007, 9:59 am
#83
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
Neither Hunki nor I have ever violated the TOS. We are both charming and polite old people who believe in fair and honest government, including moderation. Yet, in spite of our 100% positive contributions to FT, we have both been issued lifetime bans, which were, (Praise God overturned y Randy), for no valid reason, without ever once receiving an e-mail to discuss our supposed breaches or one of those much touted warnings.
Go figure.
It is entirely possible that we are aberrations and the only folks on FT who haave ever been victims of unscrupulous moderators, but that is what happened to us, and that is the truth.
Talkboard needs to make sure that this type of arbitratry banning never happens again,
Go figure.
It is entirely possible that we are aberrations and the only folks on FT who haave ever been victims of unscrupulous moderators, but that is what happened to us, and that is the truth.
Talkboard needs to make sure that this type of arbitratry banning never happens again,
as well. You have absolutely sidestepped the issue of your own moderation practices on the board you founded (MoreMiles) and how those are totally at odds with what you advocate here. You participated there in private moderator forums, you deleted posts without notice, you suspended members without right of appeal... how do you reconcile those actions with your position here? In fact, I note here that several members resigned due to your policies. You've also completely ignored that you were on talkboard once before, have been raising the same issues on moderation since 2000, even as you implemented far more restrictive policies on your own board.
The root question is thus:
- Why do you wish to hold FlyerTalk and the FT moderators to a different standard than you hold yourself?
You state you've not made any TOS violations. Were FlyerTalk to hold you to your own moderation standard as displayed here it seems you'd not only have been banned but burned at the stake!
I'll refer you to this post, as you appear to have missed it. It's understandable given that you've just finished a long journey and are likely exhausted. Still, I believe the electorate deserves answers and would greatly appreciate a comprehensive response.
Last edited by kanebear; Nov 11, 2007 at 11:09 am Reason: Fix UBB links.
Nov 11, 2007, 10:04 am
#84
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
I am as well. You have absolutely sidestepped the issue of your own moderation practices on the board you founded (MoreMiles) and how those are totally at odds with what you advocate here. You participated there in private moderator forums, you deleted posts without notice, you suspended members without right of appeal... it's almost farcical. In fact, I note here that several members resigned due to your policies.
You've also completely ignored that you were on talkboard once before, have been raising the same issues on moderation since 2000, even as you implemented far more restrictive policies on your own board.
The root question is thus:
as well. You have absolutely sidestepped the issue of your own moderation practices on the board you founded (MoreMiles) and how those are totally at odds with what you advocate here. You participated there in private moderator forums, you deleted posts without notice, you suspended members without right of appeal... it's almost farcical. In fact, I note here that several members resigned due to your policies. You've also completely ignored that you were on talkboard once before, have been raising the same issues on moderation since 2000, even as you implemented far more restrictive policies on your own board.
The root question is thus:
- Why do you wish to hold FlyerTalk and the FT moderators to a different standard than you hold yourself?
Are practices on a forum such as, ummm, TireFlock now open game?
If not, then Punki's work on another board should be out of bounds, too.
Nov 11, 2007, 10:17 am
#85
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Glasgow, UK
Programs: BAEC Gold, Priority Club RA, Lots of other cards
Posts: 3,099
I am sincerely offended by this post. I am not that naive to think that you are not at least partially referring to me here.
You make it sound as if there is a proper and improper way to run for TalkBoard, as if there are right and wrong things to say here. How can an election be hijacked? We've all answered the same questions. Are you saying that responding in a way dissimilar to other candidates is "hijacking an election?" If so, you are absolutely correct, I guess, and I won't be apologizing.
.
You make it sound as if there is a proper and improper way to run for TalkBoard, as if there are right and wrong things to say here. How can an election be hijacked? We've all answered the same questions. Are you saying that responding in a way dissimilar to other candidates is "hijacking an election?" If so, you are absolutely correct, I guess, and I won't be apologizing.
.
Next look at the post below yours, right away we are back to the moderation issue and the trawling of posts etc to prove points between FT members. This election has become very personal and I think a lot of others can see that as well.
As for you being offended, well going by what I have read so far in this so called election debate, you will have to be very thick skinned to put up with a lot of things.
Yes elections can be hijacked, certain issues are pushed so much that everything else is forgotten and in this case its moderation and as I keep saying, its become very personel.
Its clear that some folk here dont like members of the current TB and the moderators. Again its all there for people to read.
Last edited by Radioman; Nov 11, 2007 at 10:22 am
Nov 11, 2007, 10:24 am
#86
Moderator: Southwest Airlines, Capital One
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: California
Programs: WN Companion Pass, A-list preferred, Hyatt Globalist; United Club Lietime (sic) Member
Posts: 21,624
Were FlyerTalk to hold you to your own moderation standard as displayed here it seems you'd not only have been banned but burned at the stake!
My personal opinion is that there need to be clear rules for members and moderators to follow. They do not need to go down to the last detail, but they need to be unambiguous enough that everyone can know what to expect, and that it is ensured that at the very least, nobody will be banned without a proper reason for this.
Furthermore, I think moderation needs to be consistent. If someone states "a discussion about moderation is not permitted", but then only deletes those comments critical of his/her moderation and leaves those up which are supportive, then the moderation is not consistent. This would reveal that it is not the discussion about moderation that bothers the moderator, but the criticism. When you have a very large number of moderators and members, it is not easy to achieve consistency. Without clear rules and guidelines for members and moderators (what is offensive, when shall a post be edited/deleted, what are the prerequisites for a ban to go into effect, etc.), it gets harder and harder to ensure consistency and fairness the more members and moderators you have.
Regarding editing/deletion of posts, I do think that it should only be done if the post is actually offensive. I think threads should be locked when they get out of hand. But all that is up to the administrator of the board, it should just be consistent and fair - equal treatment for all. I have no problem with a very strict policy with quick bans, as long as it is clear for what and as long as the reasons for bans are not vague ("disruption of the forum", "spirit of the TOS"). They can be more vague if it is a small number of moderators as one will quickly learn what to expect from them, but they should be less and less vague, the more moderators there are.
The fact that Punki didn't delete it indicates that she agrees with my views (and attorney28's) on the benefits of making the TOS as clear as possible. If she were to focus her considerable energy on that task, we'd really be able to get somewhere.
Furthermore, I think moderation needs to be consistent. If someone states "a discussion about moderation is not permitted", but then only deletes those comments critical of his/her moderation and leaves those up which are supportive, then the moderation is not consistent. This would reveal that it is not the discussion about moderation that bothers the moderator, but the criticism. When you have a very large number of moderators and members, it is not easy to achieve consistency. Without clear rules and guidelines for members and moderators (what is offensive, when shall a post be edited/deleted, what are the prerequisites for a ban to go into effect, etc.), it gets harder and harder to ensure consistency and fairness the more members and moderators you have.
Regarding editing/deletion of posts, I do think that it should only be done if the post is actually offensive. I think threads should be locked when they get out of hand. But all that is up to the administrator of the board, it should just be consistent and fair - equal treatment for all. I have no problem with a very strict policy with quick bans, as long as it is clear for what and as long as the reasons for bans are not vague ("disruption of the forum", "spirit of the TOS"). They can be more vague if it is a small number of moderators as one will quickly learn what to expect from them, but they should be less and less vague, the more moderators there are.
Nov 11, 2007, 10:33 am
#87
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
I believe we all must account for our actions. I'm not sure what TireFlock is or was so I'm afraid I can't be more detailed on that matter.
Last edited by kanebear; Nov 11, 2007 at 11:12 am
Nov 11, 2007, 10:42 am
#88
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Commuting around the mid-atlantic and rust-belt on any number of RJs
Programs: TSA Random Selectee Platinum, * Gold, SPG/HH/MR mid-tier, and a tiny bag of pretzels.
Posts: 9,255
Neither Hunki nor I have ever violated the TOS. We are both charming and polite old people who believe in fair and honest government, including moderation. Yet, in spite of our 100% positive contributions to FT, we have both been issued lifetime bans, which were, (Praise God overturned y Randy), for no valid reason, without ever once receiving an e-mail to discuss our supposed breaches or one of those much touted warnings.
I'll step in here to correct any misunderstanding that other members may infer from this. I personally made the suspension and return decisions of Punki, not the Moderators. I was also involved in reviewing the returning membership status of Hunki as well. As for never receiving warnings. In reality, the Moderators don't have any control over that. The Moderators employ a database hosted by the House of Miles into which warnings and notices are recorded and those notices are then sent out automatically by the system. This way, we can actually see that notices were sent, not to rely on others to say they were. There are times when these notices are sent to either an older email address the member has on file within their FlyerTalk record which has not been updated by the member or lost somewhere in cyberspace either with spam traps, clogged mailboxes, etc. But we do have records in the database that warnings were sent. We are always sorry that our system cannot positively guarantee delivery of such important information, but the system eliminates many of the possible bottlenecks.
Thanks for understanding the the decision that Punki is referring to here was mine and mine alone.
Thanks for understanding the the decision that Punki is referring to here was mine and mine alone.
Nov 11, 2007, 10:59 am
#89
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
Nov 11, 2007, 11:08 am
#90
Original Member, Ambassador: External Miles and Points Resources
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Digital Nomad Wandering the Earth - Currently in LIMA, PERU
Posts: 58,611
Folks, I am NOT talking about about moderators or moderation here.
I am talking about BETTER DEFINING WHAT THE FORUMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT so that ALL posters INCLUDING MODERATORS have a better idea of what belongs and does not belong where. That is the TB's job!!!!!
Talk about 'points and miles' and 'the TB does not control moderation' misses my point entirely.
I am also talking about working as a TB member, if elected, at establishing both formal and informal relationships with Moderators so that the TB can directly convey their hopes about what fourms ought to be about and not be about to moderators whom Randy tasks with keeping things on topic.
On WHICH topics? On the topics better-defined by the TB.
Get it?
I am talking about BETTER DEFINING WHAT THE FORUMS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE ABOUT so that ALL posters INCLUDING MODERATORS have a better idea of what belongs and does not belong where. That is the TB's job!!!!!
Talk about 'points and miles' and 'the TB does not control moderation' misses my point entirely.
I am also talking about working as a TB member, if elected, at establishing both formal and informal relationships with Moderators so that the TB can directly convey their hopes about what fourms ought to be about and not be about to moderators whom Randy tasks with keeping things on topic.
On WHICH topics? On the topics better-defined by the TB.
Get it?