goalie

And if a ft member links over to a blog run by milepoint and from there joins milepoint and never gives ft the light of day again? Yes, an extreme example based on the number of members in ft but still, the way I see it is that ft as a whole (tb, mods, sig police and etc) did not (imho) do their job. I am not proposing censorship by any means-all I want is for folks to play by the rules and with that, my question to you is-why do you not want folks to play by the rules? Is it too hard? If yes, then someone shouldn't take the responsibility and have others who are willing to do it take on the responsibility. The system imho is currently broken and has been for a while and with that it takes more work to fix it and the longer it goes on, the longer it will take to fix it as the problem keeps growing)

jackal

I believe this is a logical fallacy termed a "slippery slope" argument, or perhaps it is an "appeal to probability." Just because you can dream up a worst-case consequence doesn't mean it is actually likely (at all!) to pass.

Plus, news articles linked on FT occasionally mention both FT and MP. What if an FT member clicks on a link to an article in the USA Today which mentioned MP and from there joins MP and never gives FT the light of day again? Should we ban people from linking to USA Today articles, too?

If people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," then maybe we need to address some of the root causes of that. That said, if people truly are "never giving FT the light of day again," I think we would have seen the effects of that already. I actually do visit MP on occasion and know a few people who have truly left FT, but the vast majority of people there still participate in both sites and have no beef with FT (they just prefer the more modern look of the software, the generally friendlier tone of the forum there, and the looser restrictions on the members there, but they still read and participate in FT, where most of the real discussion about issues happens).

goalie

First of all, if you're going to quote me saying my example is a fallacy, at least acknowledge the sentence I posted which you didn't quite where I acknowledge this as an extreme example but even extreme examples can (and do) happen

Yes, you are correct that there are many news articled which mention both Flyertalk and milepoint but what I am getting at is that a blogger from milepoint (and possibly subsidized by milepoint) is linking their blog sponsored by milepoint (or mepoint's parent company) in their signature on Flyertalk and the last time I looked, Flyertalk and milepoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent and thus are competitors so with that, why give a free ride to a competitor. What this all boils down to is not "we're gonna take your signatures away" but rather enforcing the rules-and if the rules aren't clear, folks are too lazy to do their job enforcing the rules and/or it is too much for the current folks to handle then change the damn rules so they are clear, remove those who are too lazy to enforce the rules and put people in place who will do the job

jackal

Yes, FlyerTalk and MilePoint are two separate companies not owned by the same parent. How does that have any relevance to the argument?

If you are arguing that representatives of FlyerTalk (i.e. TalkBoard members, moderators, employees of Internet Brands, etc.) should not link to competing sites, then you probably do have a point. But I fail to see how limiting the general membership is constructive.

As to your last point, are you really insinuating that nsx--who is one of the hardest-working moderators and TalkBoard members I know--is lazy for volunteering to assist with what very few signature issues (most of which are antagonistic towards other FT members and have nothing to do with any external links) crop up?

Canarsie

We are all part of a community of frequent fliers, and we should act as such, regardless of which Internet bulletin board we choose to be members.

Markie

But were the signatures changes or removed? That's the real question, not whether there was feedback to the reporting member surely.

Jenbel

Then as jackal says, look at how to improve FT. Don't try to censor FT to try and force members to stay here - do your job properly to improve the FT experience.

Yes, you are. You have decided that mention of one board should be verboten and now want us to enforce your wishes. As I said, why just Boarding Area/milepoint? I know people who have links to some of the other competing boards I mention above (and which you failed to address) Would we have to censor those too, in case any FT member saw them as well? And in what way have we faied to 'do our job'? It is currently not against the rules to link to blogs in signatures - and generally never has been actually.

No, it's because your rules are not the same as my rules. You have a set of rules in your head as to what should happen, and are now trying to enforce those on all of us. That is not the role of a TB member. That's not about improving the FT experience, that's about remaking the board how you want it to work. When you say the system is broke, you mean it doesn't work how you think it should.

Please define the detriment to the members of FT. This should not be about rules and how you think things should work and you controlling what is allowed in signatures - this should be about you trying to improve things for FT members, and I haven't seen one idea from you on this which is not about your own preferences and which considers the wider FT membership.

kokonutz

I am still waiting (very patiently, by my standards ) for someone, anyone, to explain to me why the TOS as applied to posts are clear and enforcable.

But those exact same TOS as applied to sigs are suddenly grey and unenforcable, leading to sigs being treated differently from posts.

As an example of how absurd this double standard is, for a time I placed an advert for my favorute local pub in my sig line. Such blatant commercialism would of course subject me to discipline if I were to manually type such a blatant TOS violation in the body of my post. But suddenly, because the IB software automatically adds the text to my post rather than my manually typing it, different standards of conduct apply.

This is clearly illogical to my mind.

So, please, someone explain why typing things into a post is subject to one standard while having it automatically added to every post after submitting reply is subject to a different standard!?

Further, why just the specific commercial TOS? If sigs are going to be wild west because they are so difficult to enforce, I want to be able to criticize moderation and moderators, use curse words and insult other posters in the sigs, too.

Mary2e

IIRC, no, they were not.

Jenbel

We have told you. You just don't want to accept the ascertain that it is more difficult to police signatures than it is to police posts so only the really key features - the things you would like to be able to do but which would cause way more issues on the board - are enforced.

Mind you, I'm still waiting for one of the TB members to explain why it is detrimental to the members they represent.

RichMSN

You telling us and us buying it are two very different things.

HOWEVER, I personally see this is as a solution in search of a problem, so I'd have to be really, really convinced by other TB members and more than one or two FTers why the TOS needs to be addressed to deal with this.

kipper

Why is it so difficult to police signatures, when it isn't difficult to police posts? I'm not an IT person, but I'd think that an alert could be created, and sent to all on the signature review committee, any time someone creates or edits a signature. This alert could prompt a review of it, and if it is a TOS violation, then that member is alerted to it, along with possible actions, if they fail to revise it. You'd need to wade through the existing signatures before such a link would be effective, but I'd guess that it's also possible for those on the signature review committee to be given a list of all members who currently have signatures, so those could be reviewed as well.

kokonutz

The question is WHY is it so much more difficult to enforce the TOS in sigs than in posts?

WHY are TOS violations in the body of a post suddenly grey when there is a

"______________"

inserted by the software!?


_________________
When you click on this, I get paid. So please click on this.




Have I violated the TOS? Because I typed that "_____________"?

tcook052

FWIW I don't believe this issue is a "problem" and it's only this thread that has magnified it to the point where some might believe it to be one.

jackal

I would caution you against expectations that technology will fix the problem.

For one, I highly, highly doubt that the functionality you describe already exists in the software platform. And if it doesn't, there are many, many items much, much higher on the "fix it" list.

And even if the functionality does exist or were implemented, on a board with 300,000 members, there are probably thousands of signature changes each day. It would likely require several people working full-time in order to review these changes. The vast, vast majority of them are small and inane changes, and it'd be silly to spend multiple tens of thousands of dollars on paid staff to sit around and do nothing but review these thousands of tiny changes.