ClueByFour

Oh, I agree.

Or, we could assume that Randy, being a somewhat smart guy, may already have a plan in place, and that by extension, neither you, I, or any other Talkboard candidate could possibly have a better idea about what the man is going to do than the man himself.

I'm amazed, above and beyond the timeframe in question, that people are planning for Randy's demise without having ask Randy if he himself has planned for his demise.

Wanton hubris, I say.

kanebear

...especially given that many making the most noise may not be on TalkBoard by then even if elected this cycle. Three years is at leat three elections from now!

satori

I had to go back to page 1 to remind myself - What is the question?

My answer is simply if we do not have purview over "policies of moderation" then I don't need to address the issue. Why do candidates build campaigns around the issue? I didn't know this occurred in the past as a significant campaign issue.

I had several years of past experience in the early 1990s working with bylaws, rules, and resolutions for the California Teachers Association and National Education Association as a member of organizational policy-making boards. I have a graduate degree in labor relations. It sounds like this is an issue that would benefit from clearly defined guidelines delineating roles within the organization.

FlyerTalk is also a for-profit business, so if we are told that an issue is not in our domain of influence, then "that is what it is".

RichMSN

We couldn't agree more. Randy owes us nothing and has given us quite a bit. Whatever he plans on doing, I'll wish him well when the time comes.

I am a high school sports official part time and I have contracts for games in 2010. I don't understand why people plan so far in advance. I could be dead or unable to officiate by then. And yet people want to be able to solidify the future....which is so very fluid....

NOLAnwGOLD

It's impossible to legislate moderation since it's impossible to come up with rules that will apply to each situation. With the TOS, it gives guidelines for the moderators and a basis for their decisions. The key is in the selection process to find appropriate moderators and once selected to make sure that the TOS are generally kept.

Radioman

Hi
Well I have already made my views known about moderation, as somene who has taken part in a few elections on TB I must say that this issue of moderation always comes into play.

Like I keep on saying each person will view moderation differantly, we will never ever agree on what we all read or the actions of the moderators.

I do hope that we can move away from this constant theme of moderators and talk about other things during the elections.

regards

Weatherboy

I think some candidates may take this approach because they or the FlyerTalk community may not know the difference between the role of the moderators and the TalkBoard.

Ultimately, the Board needs to ensure great dialog and debate happens throughout the forums. I don't believe in over-moderation and over-legislating of what can or can't be written about. Rather than offer up more rules and procedures for moderators to follow, I believe the Board should do what it can to work with the moderators to ensure consistency.

kokonutz

I think part of the TB's job is clearly defining their intentions to moderators: http://flyertalk.com/forum/showpost....9&postcount=90

Punki

ClueByFour writes:

Actually, I have asked, twice. Once in a private e-mail and once here:

http://flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=753955

Still awaiting an answer.

I think that everyone who has a position of responsibility should make plans for their own demise or retirement or just moving on to do something else.

It will take at least three years to put together a real plan, figure out how it will work and then implement it. I may be the only one who sees this and, if that is the case, no one will vote for me and I can just go back to flying and playing all around the world.

Hunki is even now encouraging me to hurry up and get ready so we can run downstairs and catch our ride to AKL for our flight to SYD. Sorry I didn't get a chance to address all of the questions, but travel comes first.

ClueByFour

Yeah, but you did it after starting a campaign assuming that you (or anyone else) either was asked and/or needed to plan for it.

And perhaps there is a reason that you are still awaiting an answer: you don't need to be privy to the answer. Or Randy does not feel you need to know. Or maybe Internet Brands wants to keep the wraps on it. Or maybe Randy won't really be "gone" in 3.5 years.

You don't know, but that did not stop you from "starting to plan." I think we know why--more on that in a second.

You are the only one who made the assumption that Randy does not already have a plan in place. You are the only one who has assumed that Randy (or Internet Brands) would ask the Talkboard for input, much less be a part of whatever the solution is. You are the only one who is automatically assuming that Randy will be out in exactly 3.5 years--I understand that's not necessarily what either Randy and/or Internet Brands think, but you chose not to ask either until after the campaign began.

Question: why don't you trust the man who built Flyertalk from the ground on up to the wonderful place it is today to plan for his own succession? Can we actually assume it has nothing to do with the suspension he mentions above?

Because you might understand why the average reader might be able to find more than a passing connection between the two. Unrequested planning for a plan to succeed the man who issued one a lifetime suspension strikes me as more a bit transparent.....

Punki

Actually, Clue you are, once again, quite wrong. I asked the question when I presented my platform to Randy, before I decided to run for TalkBoard.

While the vast majority of FlyerTalk moderation is above board and well intended, there is that small bit that falls into the category of misuse of power. That is wrong, pure and simple. How those errors are handled is important to me and should be important to every FlyerTalker. If even one poster is handed an undeserved death penalty, that is unacceptable.

That is not the kind of community that we are or have ever been, and I hope that that is not the type of community that we will ever be.

ClueByFour

Really? You asked Randy on 5-November which was well after these debates began, and certainly after you decided to run. Or that's what we can verify, anyway. I'd expect that if this was a weighty concern, that you would have found use of the "Only Randy Petersen" forum to ask somewhat earlier. You have 474 posts in "Only Randy Petersen." I'm curious: with such a heavy and important issue, why wait this long to ask?

But let's assume the benefit of the doubt: here is what you said (a few posts above) you asked (a whole week before):

Not, "hey, got any plans?" but "hey, what happens to people who are banned?"

What's funny about this is that I'd think the more pressing question should have been "what happens when you are not around to ban people anymore," don't you?

I have a plank in my platform that says "In the past few years, there has been somewhat of a swing on the TB towards advancing the "pet projects" of the individual members (some of which have no realistic chance of ever happening). I think that misses the point."

I really think we can take this whole "planning for Randy's demise" thing and lump it into "pet project of individual members."

RichMSN

I like your sig. We could call it "how to call someone a liar while skirting the TOS."

Again, Cholula earlier posted evidence that anything that happens outside of FlyerTalk is supposed to stay there. Is that going to be ignored, too?

I'm amazed that people try to tell candidates what is and what is not a valid platform (for almost 2 weeks now) and then try to use something posted on another forum to "get" another candidate, even though that is expressly forbidden as part of the debate rules.

kanebear

Glad you like it. I simply felt voters should know which candidates are campaigning on issues far outside their mandate (that they have no control over, as the scope of talkboard is set outside that body's control). Thus, these candidates are stating that their primary focus will be on aspects of FlyerTalk totally outside their control, which all but ensures little to no meaningful TalkBoard business will get done.

As for items off FlyerTalk; there's a world of difference between dredging up some aspect of a candidate's personal life totally unrelated to FT and what you reference.

I did not attempt to find a candidate in the sex-offender database and post that information to discredit them. That would be out of bounds, full stop.

This is nothing of the sort. FlyerTalk and MoreMiles have not-infrequent crossover. Candidates have referenced FT from MoreMiles and MoreMiles from FT. Thus, this happened on FlyerTalk and is directly related to FlyerTalk and core aspects of candidates' campaigns. It is necessary to ensure the electorate is as informed as possible. I merely point to what candidates have said as well as their actions.

RichMSN

Regardless of your justification, it's against the rules:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...28&postcount=1

I hope that voters note the irony that some people are trying to discredit and derail serious and spirited debate by saying some topics for discussion should be out of bounds while using tactics clearly and specifically outside the rules of this campaign.

Personally, I'd be more interested in the sex offender registry information.