Question 14: Forum Autonomy, Inclusive Events
Nov 10, 2007, 8:52 am
#16
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: Southern California
Programs: DL: 3.8 MM, Marriott: Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 24,575
DO's have been inclusive because our benevolent dictator said they should be and, as I stated previously, I don't personally have any problem with this position. But its probably not something under the purview of the TalkBoard.
Nov 10, 2007, 9:59 am
#17
Suspended
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Seattle
Programs: Ephesians 4:31-32
Posts: 10,690
In real life, however, one does not publish a notice of a private party in the paper.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
Nov 10, 2007, 2:17 pm
#18
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: A Southern locale that ain't the South.
Programs: Bah, HUMBUG!
Posts: 8,014
In real life, however, one does not publish a notice of a private party in the paper.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
Nov 10, 2007, 2:23 pm
#19
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 1999
Programs: Marriott Lifetime Titanium
Posts: 15,352
In real life, however, one does not publish a notice of a private party in the paper.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
Private parties are fine, but FT is not the vehicle to announce or discuss them. The second that a party is mentioned on FT, it must include everybody, and yes, IMHO, that includes the moderator DOs. It still boggles my mind that the moderators go to such great lengths to avoid general member input. Even Starwood, United and Bank of America are constantly asking me what I think about their service. Why not the FT moderators?
I have served on the Parish Council for my church, which is about as close to FT as we can get--several thousand active members and that really is all that Ft can honestly claim (the 153,000 number just represents those who have passed through, not those who are really members of the community) . People serve on the Parish Council and communicate by phone or during private lunches, dinners, etc., but the meetings are open to everyone who cares enough about the community to show up and put in their two cents. That is the way real communities work. That is what we need.
In other words, I'm not really sure this is a topic I can get all excited about. But I'll continue to think about it going forward and would seek out member feedback to see if this is important to the regular, active members of FT.