kokonutz

I have not been surprised by on-topic posts being summarily deleted without notice in YEARS. @:-)

JDiver

Please remember that discussion of specific moderator actions is not allowed by the Rules.

Please contact the specific forum's moderator(s) for questions or concerns about moderator actions, or if there are no appointed moderators in a forum, the four senior moderators.

Thank you.

JDiver
Moderator

kokonutz

Soooo...that smokers thread really seemed to be getting some traction before it was <redacted>.

Maybe we ought to create a forum for smokers travel issues after all!

kokonutz

Apparently that thread has gone from locked to deleted. [ETA, it has not. It has fallen to the third page (with threads set at 50 per page).]

It was a valiant effort, nsx. I applaud your trying to achieve a compromise and seeing if we could prove out the viability of a place on FT for smokers who travel to discuss issues of mutual interest without creating a new forum to give it a test flight. My ongoing disgust with the TB's inability to eliminate the overlap between Travel News and Travel Buzz and what that says about the TB's inability to fix forums once they are created makes me twice shy in terms of creating any forum so I really and truly appreciated your effort.

Alas, it appears that if FlyerTalk is ever going to have a decent shot at trying out a Smokers Travel Lounge it will have to be by recommendation of the TalkBoard.

And what I saw in the brief time moderators allowed that thread to live in TravelBuzz, I do think a Smokers Travel Forum has a chance to be of substantial benefit to the subset of FlyerTalkers who smoke on the road. And those topics appear to have no 'safe' home on FT.

But I'd only get behind such a forum if there are a strict set of rules that include:

- Discussion would only be allowed on travel topics that interest smokers. NO smoker shaming, badgering or mocking.

- Discussion of smoking cessation and work-arounds (like gum, patches, vaping, etc) allowed, but no proselytizing/ridiculing/humiliating for cessation.

So to add to nsx's description (of the moderator-prohibited Smokers Lounge thread) above:

The Smokers' Lounge Forum is a flame-free zone for discussion of subjects related to smokers who travel. Any derogatory posts about smokers or smoking will be promptly extinguished.

Topics may include:

Hotels and hotel brands that offer rooms for smokers
Airport accommodations for smokers
Car rental restrictions and brand differences
Vaping restrictions compared with smoking restrictions
Smoking hacks and work-arounds
Smoking materials/paraphernalia comparison and acquisition
Cessation (positive discussion only - proselytizing and smoker-shaming is strictly prohibited)

I think I would be in favor of giving such a forum a shot.

Canarsie

No — it is still here.In light of recent events, I am also willing to give this proposed forum a chance as well.

kokonutz

Ah, I see, it fell to the third page. My bad.

Yeah, I hate being 'forced' into doing it this way when nsx had such a great idea to try it out as a thread.

But given how that went, I think a forum is the only fair way to proceed.

This may be a radical idea, but I wonder if we could include a sunset provision where unless a 2/3 majority of the TB continues to approve of the forum in, say, six or eight months, the forum goes away. Err on the side of being sure the forum works rather than making it nearly impossible to close or change the forum if it does not.

Although it may not be fair to apply that rule to this new forum but none of the existing ones.

Either way, I do think the forum deserves a shot.

Canarsie

I guess I view things more basically.

I do not see this as “creating yet another forum”; but rather simply addressing a need that apparently exists...

...in this case, giving a subset of FlyerTalk members a “safe haven” of sorts where they can freely discuss a topic that is important to them.

I see no harm in giving this forum a chance; and if necessary, we can review the statistics of the new forum in a given timeframe.

tcook052

So we have a proposed forum with no demonstrated demand metrics, very little support within this thread and no criteria questions answered (remember those koko?) yet suddenly it's back to the 'let's give it a shot' TB mantra? Maybe the smoke should be left to settle so some TB members can review the statistics provided by JDiver and rethink their change of position.

There already is a mandated annual TB forum traffic activity review that apparently gets scant attention if any so why have a separate review for this forum only?

kokonutz

I feel ya, brother. I really do. I am going to propose a new approach to that issue. I suggest we discuss it there and focus our conversation here on the propose Smokers Lounge Forum.

tom911

What's your position on the Talk Board forum creation questionnaire? I notice you were heavily in favor of that in another recent thread and actually went through the process of posting answers to it, yet no mention of it here by any Talk Board member.

MSPeconomist

If I may ask for simple clarification.....is the thread closed permanently or is it still pending moderator review, which is what the last post says? I would assume the latter, but people are talking here as if they're assuming that the closure is permanent. [I'm not trying to discuss moderator actions, but I'd like to know what decision has been taken. This could affect my position on any proposed smokers' forum on FT.]

tcook052

Sorry but since you mused aloud about including a sunset provision I thought it only worth noting that according to this motion "TalkBoard does not anticipate using automatic sunsetting of forums, preferring instead to create forums only when we they are strongly expected to succeed." I'll reiterate that this forum has not met the burden to even come close to saying it would be strongly expected to succeed and suggest TB follow it's own adopted statement on criteria for forum changes.

kokonutz

Yes, that's precisely the policy I am considering amending. Because the TB that created that policy clearly never anticipated how difficult it would be to close or change existing forums. Stay tuned on that.

As for whether a smokers forum would be strongly expected to succeed, the brief experiment that was allowed in TravelBuzz gave me the impression that it would. Wish that could have played out a bit longer, but apparently it cannot.

Yeah, I spent a ton of time filling out that questionnaire. And everyone ignored it: no one was willing to counter my point by point analysis, no one was willing to complete the questionnaire to support the opposing view. Complete waste of my time.

My understanding is that the decision was taken to permanently close it. Placing subject threads into TravelBuzz as an experiment to see whether it will have traction is apparently not acceptable.

So. Plan B.

MSPeconomist

And for some TB votes, I've asked for the questionnaire information and been ignored, where others apparently ended up voting based on their gut feelings about whether there was a need for the forum. No data whatsoever.

nsx

In fairness, the Smokers' Lounge was not a great fit into Travel Buzz. I just couldn't think of a better fit anywhere on FT. But TravelBuzz is full of all kinds of readers, presumably mostly non-smokers, so a Smokers' thread had the potential to create work for the moderators. I failed to anticipate that issue.

If there's a way to gauge interest without creating a new forum, I'd like to hear it. In the meantime, in my opinion the lack of any good home for a relevant subject is a trump card. As the person who drafted the forum creation criteria, I never anticipated such a situation.

The criteria ask "Is this the best place on FlyerTalk for this subject?" rather than "In the absence of a forum, is there any place on FlyerTalk for this subject?" For the Smokers' Lounge, that answer is currently "No". To me, that supports the need for a forum. And yes, I strongly expect it to succeed. I believe there is a pent-up demand for discussion of topics from a smoker's point of view.