nsx

Your first assumption is correct. The intent of the signature committee was and is to improve consistent application of the signature rules. Consistency is a noncontroversial objective. Perfection is not achievable here without consistent reporting by members, so that source of variation will always remain.

Your second assumption is a stretch. It is not true that any rule is enforceable. Whoever makes the rules should consider both the workload required from volunteers and the likelihood that members will understand, agree with, and follow the rules.

As a silly example, if the TOS were to require that FT always be spelled out as FlyerTalk, that would not be enforceable. The rules need to make obvious sense, and they need to be clear. This is much easier said than done.

goalie

Bolding mine: Then what pray tell does the "Signature Committee" do?

And as to the rest of your post, imho, it appears to me that you're saying "I don't want to do any more work because it's hard and I won't have time to do it" so with that, I see two options. One is the old saying that if one doesn't like the heat in the kitchen and the other is employ more moderators and/or folks on the Signature Committee plus you keep saying that this (and other issues which you disagree with) are voiced by "a few people" and in the same breath, you say that I was elected to serve all members of Flyertalk so with that, don't "the few" deserve to be heard and/or have a voice as well?

kokonutz

But the Mods apparently have no problems enforcing the TOS in posts. It does not create any sort of unworkable burden.

My question is why it causes so much MORE burden to enforce those exact same TOS in sigs such that it is going to take up all of their free time?

To me it's like you are saying there is no problem enforcing the speed limits in the left, middle and right hand lanes of traffic. But woe is me, we cannot possibly enforce the same speed limits for folks driving on the shoulder of the highway, so we let folks there go 30mph faster before we pull them over.

It's a bit ponderous.

oliver2002

Why is this discussion constantly drifting into the enforcement area? Set the policy as you see fit, enforcement will implement what is finally decided by TB,IB,CD, etc....?

To me signatures are in the same drawer as titles, avatars and other niceties people long for. The scouts have badges, the military medals, the fashion industry wouldn't exist if we didn't long for such things. Why people feel the need to decorate their posts with such bling is beyond me, as it probably distracts from any content within it

kokonutz

Only because the only argument I have seen against applying all TOS (including the commercial link TOS) to sigs is that it is too hard to enforce.

If that is not actually the case, then alls the better. ^

bhatnasx

Unenforced rules aren't really rules.

If the TB were to recommend that signatures not be allowed to contain commercial messaging or links (which is what the TOS used to say, IIRC), then if that were to be implemented by IB/CD, it would have to be enforced. I believe 99% of the reason the rule changed was because it wasn't being enforced before.

jackal

When I opened up this thread and started reading, this was actually the first idea that came to my mind.

I do not support prohibiting commercial links in signatures (I believe there is value in allowing it, a cause continually championed by Canarsie), but I do not think it is unfair to expect community leaders to abstain from promoting direct competitors to the entity for which they volunteer. That must be narrowly defined, though, to only include direct brand and category competitors and not be broadened beyond that. Frankly, I'm mildly surprised that hasn't already been instituted, even informally, by the Community Director.

Exactly. The "problem" described by kokonutz is a rare and narrowly-defined problem that if it even needs a solution should be a narrow one.

Agree wholeheartedly.

The point made by Jenbel is that the Signature Committee can't proactively monitor EVERY post that gets posted with a signature--there are tens of thousands of those per day. The committee acts on signatures posted for review on a dedicated thread in the private moderator forum, PMed to them, or presumably otherwise encountered by them on their travels around FlyerTalk.

Agree 100%. It's awkward, unnecessary, and beyond overkill for the small issue being raised here (that a moderator's signature included a link to a direct brand competitor of FlyerTalk and that signature was displayed at the end of a locked thread for a short time).

And I'll answer how many complaints I have received on this issue: zero. In fact, aside from the small handful of posters complaining about this issue in this thread--a majority of whom may actually be TalkBoard members--I can answer how many complaints I have seen on this issue across the entirety of FlyerTalk in the last two years: zero. Not a single one of the 300 FlyerTalk members I've met in person has mentioned this as a problem, too, even when I specifically solicit feedback from them.

Last, I think the idea of turning all signatures off, even temporarily while this "problem" is "resolved," is a bit histrionic. I also vehemently disagree with the idea of turning signatures off by default for new registrants and requiring people to opt-in to signatures. The vast, vast majority of signatures are so unobtrusive as to make this of very little value, and many signatures add significant value to the FlyerTalk experience (the link in my signature to our recent DO in Alaska, for example, which brought over two dozen people to the the land of gold mining, giant bird-sized mosquitos, vans with spare tires that don't fit [not a good thing to discover 20 miles from the nearest outpost of civilization with no cell service], crazy people swimming in the Bering Sea, baseball games that take place at midnight with no artificial light, and other wild adventures). With signatures turned off, many more FlyerTalkers would be unaware of such community-building activities and fewer would learn about valuable resources.

tom911

So we have one Talk Board member that has not received any complaints (jackal), and another Talk Board member, SkiAdock that has received one complaint from a member that has also complained in this thread. Is that the total of all complaints received my PM by all Talk Board members in the last 30 days?

Could it be that the majority of FT just doesn't care about this issue to communicate privately with Talk Board members and think it's an issue, as it has been in the past, for the moderators to deal with?

Tom in the Flagship Lounge at ORD

Canarsie

In all of the years I have been a FlyerTalk moderator — eight years this month, for those of you keeping track — and during my tenure as a Senior Moderator, I am not sure I even dealt with signature issues reported by FlyerTalk members more than two dozen times, if that.

tcook052

Yes, it could very well be and I'd wager a poll of the wider FT membership would confirm as much.

Mary2e

I've reported a few, some early on, and some after commercial links were allowed.

I only heard back after the TOS were changed and I was told as much.

I never heard a word from the other, pre-changed TOS reports.

goalie

Maybe it's me, but should a member's signature include a link to the member's blog where the blog is a boardingarea blog?

Jenbel

Is there a difference between a boarding area blog and any other blog?

goalie

Last time I looked, it's run by the same company that runs milepoint

Jenbel

OK.

But TB are here to improve the FT experience for members.

Why are you concerned with trying to control the signatures of members to stop them publicising other sites? How does that improve the FT experience for members?

And why just milepoint? Why not mft, v-flyer, canflyer, the german site (VFF?), AFF, or sqtalk (or any of the other myriad sites out there? They're just the ones I know about). And if you are saying no boarding area links in signatures, can we still post v-flyer links on the VS board?