nsx

Punki, it's clear that your view of the Terms of Service differs from the view of moderators, who typically confer with each other on suspensions. How could we correct this problem? By making the Terms of Service more explicit, precisely what I propose in my platform!

Another idea, and one that would likely fall outside TalkBoard authority, would be to let the software trigger a reviewable posting speed limit or short-term timeout if an unusually high percentage of a member's posts are deleted. A small number of members is responsible for a large percentage of moderators' workload, including deletions.

My point is that if you're looking for a workable solution to this problem and if you're willing to compromise, there is probably a solution to be found.

If the price of perfect justice for every FT member who skirts the edge of the Terms of Service is forum pollution that drives away hundreds of valuable members who never get anywhere near the line, that price is too high IMHO.

I have a constructive plan for specific action: clarifying the TOS. Nobody else running has a plan that has any chance of resolving your concern.

Punki

Hey, nsx, you have already sold me. I think your ideas are sound and would go a long way to creating greater equity on FT.

This whole debate has been a fascinating and edifying experience. Thanks for the fish.

It will be interesting to see what the general FT public decides by way of their votes.

ClueByFour

Not true. I plan on letting Randy continue address that specific concern To wit:

I'll let Randy run down this road, and if he asks for input, give it. I'm not going to assume (as some have) that there actually is a problem (I don't believe there is) and that Randy wants or needs unsolicited help in solving it (checking out the entire post in the link above will prove what I have been saying--he's got it well in hand, and this business of his demise is highly overblown strictly for a political platform grab). If he asks the TB to give it a once over, so be it--but until that time we should allow the guy who built the house to do his thing.

nsx

That sounds like a revision of the appeals process. I'm talking about making the rules themselves (TOS) more explicit, so that posters and moderators are less likely to disagree on whether or not a rule was broken. The goal is to head off the dispute before it even occurs, not to deal with it way after the fact with the appeals process.

ClueByFour

You know, I asked this in another thread and did not get an answer, so I'll try again in this thread, as it seems to be more apropos:

So, I ask: how are we to take those quotes in light of what has been said in this thread?