ClueByFour

Once again, I'm going to wait and see what Randy and/or the internet brands folks say before I climb over Randy's dead carcass to reach a decision that is not mine to make in the first place (talkboard member or otherwise).

I'm sure he'd like it if everyone extended him that courtesy. It seems rather morbid to be openly planning to replace the functions of a guy who has not even put a date or definite on his departure, much less using it as a lever for a campaign platform with no chance of implementation.

skofarrell

I don't believe the talkboard should have any oversight of moderation.

nsx

I just don't buy the argument that moderators have an inherently different view of what's better for FT than other members have. Moderators send and receive more PMs with other members, and we can see the messy kitchen in addition to the pot luck meal served at the table, but the meal (the members' forums) is the whole point of FT.

One other thing. What moderators can see is a slight superset of what other members see. How exactly is this additional knowledge detrimental to TalkBoard? That can only be the case if moderators are (or should be) the natural adversaries of the TalkBoard. That's hogwash.

We are all in this together, with the same goal: to make FT the best it can be for the members. If it takes me 25 PMs to cure someone of making a nuisance of himself and help him become a friend and a valuable contributor instead, how does that change my perspective of what's best for FT? It doesn't, other than to make me think about how to make this education process easier for everyone affected.

Cholula

Randy has already semi-privately laid out his plans for the next 3 ½ years and beyond and I was privileged enough to hear those plans.

I'm not speaking here for Randy and he can make those plans known on FT if and when he so desires.

Let me just suggest that, short of his getting hit by the proverbial beer truck, we shouldn't have to worry about a Randyless FT anytime soon.

kokonutz

Was that to moderators?

Someone tell me again how moderators are just like all other posters?

kokonutz

Sorry if I am being a thread-hog but I just wanted to respond to this.

No, all lobbyists do not have the same perspective. BUT lobbyists DO all view government in a different way than people who are not lobbyists. We see how the sausage is made and it colors how we view the sausage. That is neither a good nor a bad thing, but I certainly don't want all of Congress to be populated by lobbyists!!!!

Your point that people who have something in common can be very different is not lost on me. But the fact of the matter is that no matter how hard I try I can never relate to the perspective of a gay man. It's just not my paradigm. Same thing with moderators. Moderators may hold infinite perspectives on things, but they are all from the perspective of moderators.

Randy Petersen

I'll clarify for the good of all. This was not an agenda item for the recent Moderator Meeting if that helps.

At the end of the day, i made myself open to any and all questions from those attending. An open session like so many similar types of meetings, not just moderators. Perhaps you've even attended some conference somewhere where they set aside an open session for questions.

A question was asked of me about my involvement with FlyerTalk after the conditions of the Internet Brands agreement are met 3 1/2 years from now (which by the way, is a full 4 more election periods for TalkBoard members). I answered it as i would any member asking me that question since it really can't have but a single answer.

Just like all posters? Well, if you were to review threads in ORP from members, you would notice that no single member has asked me that question. You of course, have had that ability, so has Punki, but neither bothered to ask. So when someone does bother to ask it and it is also an interest of yours, does it really matter that a Moderator asked it? Truly, if you had asked it before they had asked the question, you would have gotten the same answer as they did since it was live, non-scripted and since not on any agenda, flowed from whatever thoughts i might have had on the topic in real time.

Anyway, i hope the facts that no member has asked that question of me helps explain this. If you think it pertinent, just ask the question and I'll answer it, live or online.

Punki

Thank you, Randy. I for one am thrilled that there is a plan in the works. I was very worried about this issue which is what prompted my e-mail to you on October 28, which read in part as follows:

"One of my most serious concerns is what will happen to people who are "Banned" when you are no longer around to reinstate them? "

Forgive me if I misunderstood, but my understanding of your answer was that it wouldn't be an issue for 3.5 years, and that, honestly, made me even more concerned. I am having a hard time envisioning the creation, and implementation of such a plan, let alone tweaking it to operate smoothly in less than 3.5 years. I can't imagine that the moderators are thrilled when you override their suspensions and it will be ten times harder for them when that decision comes from another body. That will take some serious preparation.

In order to be perfectly clear, however, about both my question and your answer, I did just ask the question again in ORP.

RichMSN

This would be a great analogy, except one can't serve in Congress and on the Supreme Court at the same time.

I think one should run on whatever platform they want. Voters can decide whether or not the platform is reasonable and achievable.

Punki

You bring up an excellent point, Cholula, what if Randy were hit by the proverbial beer truck?

One of the first things that one has to grasp as a parent and/or a business owner is that there is nothing at all morbid about making a clear plan to cover those for whom you are responsible, in the event you do happen to meet up with a Coors truck.

nsx

Please don't throw Randy under the bus.

The plain fact is that we're all replaceable in all our roles, ESPECIALLY our roles on FT. That includes Randy. FT might be a little different, but probably a lot less different than you fear. And Randy must agree or he wouldn't have sold FT to Internet Brands.

There's really only one thing that could seriously disrupt the future of FT, and that is pointless political bickering. I've seen it several times with enthusiast groups. High-strung high achievers with outsize egos rub each other the wrong way, which is particularly easy to do by email or on a forum, and pretty soon the sparks are flying. Nobody remembers how it started, but these people only know how to escalate the fight. The group splits, then one part fails or they both fail.

I'm confident we can avoid this, because most of the moderators and TalkBoard members are calm and unassuming people who know how to be diplomatic.

I urge all voters to look at the platforms and the posts here and choose someone who is not in the high-strung category, even though some high-strung members are the most passionate about FT and are valuable contributors.

Punki

I trust that you are correct, nsx, and that there is indeed a plan, designed to retain the flavor of our wonderful community.

ClueByFour

Have you asked him?

RichMSN

I know if I was hit by a beer truck, I would hope it contained Fat Tire or at least one of the more palatable mass-marketed brews.

I love FT, but at the end of the day, IJAFIBB. If Randy says he's going to be around 3.5 years, well, that's a long, long time IMO -- let's worry about that 3 years from now.

Cholula

But that's the great thing about cyberspace!

One can do and be almost anything s/he can imagine.

And it happens much faster and easier up here than when we are rooted to terra firma.