With so many worthy candidates going for only 4 spots, I feel that greater depth of you candidacy would be beneficial for most members of the general FT Community in making a decision.

I'd like to see all the candidates try and answer the questions to make it easier (or possibly harder) and helpful for all the other FTers to cast their vote.

****************
Dearest Candidates for the TalkBoard:
A number of you mention that one of the things that needs to change most on FlyerTalk is the elimination of "personal attacks".

What do YOU consider to be a personal attack? ...and as a member of the Talk Board how do you plan to reduce/eliminate them?

Thank you for your time!

Too often I see people complain that something is a "personal attack", mostly that's just when their opinion is called "silly" or "stupid", that sounds more like an argument gone bad to me than a "personal attack".

Too often there are real attacks on FT and nothing is done about it, one of the best ways to reduce these real attacks is by making sure the Flyertalk TOS is enforced, that means that if the moderator issues a warning to the "attacker" and the attacks continue I'd like to see the moderator have to power to alert Randy and have him issue the appropriate "punishment" i.e a timeout.

That said, I don't know if the Talkboard really has anything new to do here besides making everyone aware of the TOS they agree to when signing up.

I think many members have lost touch with the TOS as the last timeout for "flaming" was at least a year ago (I think). Certain boards have constant flames and attacks from the same people and except for a small warning from the moderator nothing has been done, the UA board is a good example of this.

Perhaps it's time everyone on FT received a
fresh copy of the TOS by email and is made aware that it will be enforced strictly.

Randy isn't able to look at all boards so it's up to his moderators to point out attacks and request a timeout.

Current moderation has proven that we have a good group of moderators and I for one would trust their judgement in decisions on these matters.

Thanks, Chexfax, for getting the ball rolling.

I am going to take a stab at answering your question below. But I do caution that my ideas here are a work in progress.

I look forward to learning from the responses of other candidates as much as (and much more than) staking out a position. There are plenty of smart people around who have alot to offer, whether on the TalkBoard or not. So I'm sure that my own ideas will be modified and clarified by the good arguments that others make in this thread.

I don't see the TOS as a hammer to enforce. Instead, I see it as a guideline that embodies the idea that FT should be a community that welcomes a diverse group of flyers and participants.

The role of moderators is, first and foremost, to reduce tensions and make Flyertalk a welcoming place.

The TalkBoard to provide guidance and perhaps settle disputes.

A personal attack can, I think, be distinguished from a substantive opinion. Flyertalk (and ideally its members) should focus on the substance of a post. Criticizing who the poster is, rather than the merits of their argumetns, is the essence of a personal attack.

A poster can be disruptive without making a personal attack. Here I think of folks who continually harp on negative aspects of a carrier in a forum where the majority of posters are positive about the carrier -- or the reverse. In that case, I know that several moderators have worked hard to
(a) protect the rights of the critical poster to express their opinion
(b) while counseling the poster on ways to do so diplomatically
(c) and keeping other board members from responding personally.

"Disruptive" posts CAN be healthy, but it takes real work to make it positive for all around.

"Personal attacks" when coming frequently from the same poster should warrant action.

In my role as a moderator, I've often emailed a poster and asked them to consider editing their remarks, explaining that they seemed to be crossing the line away from civil discourse. And folks have often appreciated the gesture -- because we've all had times where we hit the 'submit reply' button without truly considering the effects of our words.

When a person continually makes those kinds of posts, that's when a time-out is going to be appropriate.

What do the rest of y'all think?

Best,
Gary
aka gleff

Personal attacks on FlyerTalk are something that I know quite a bit about, both as the victim, and, in one regrettable instance, as an attacker.

Simply put, a personal attack is a critcism or insult made by one poster against another that does not involve the issue at hand. They are often used to distort or deflect attention from the discussion in the thread. In extreme cases, personal attacks can have the effect of paralyzing an entire forum, as we have witnessed in severl forums over the years.

Having been both a victim and on one occasion an attacker, I understand both the drive behind posting an attack, and the harm that it causes to the well-being of the community. As a member of TalkBoard, I would encourage the adoption of a sharply-curved progressive punishment system for personal attackers. While the first (and possibly second) attacks would warrant strong warnings, subsequent attacks would be swiftly met with lengthy suspensions and total bans.

Even if such a system is implemented, the best way to stifle personal attacks will be for members of the community to collectively stand against them, regardless of who is attacking or being attacked. To that end, I believe that members of TalkBoard need to be highly vocal in denouncing personal attacks whenever they occur.

------------------
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a proud member of the SkyTeam Alliance.

Great Question!

I first want to agree with Scott, that I think that a lot of things are called personal attacks that aren't really attacks. There is a tendency on FlyerTalk to use the TOS as a blunt instrument (or not use it at all!), and I feel that it is much more of a general guideline. The mere mention of another poster's name is not necessarily an attack.

When attacks really do occur, they seem to be the result of disputes and resentments that build over time. I think that the TalkBoard is ideally suited to take a more active role in mediating some of these disputes before they go too far.

I myself have been involved in a situation which started as a simple difference of opinion, but has spiraled into something much more serious because we were not able to work out the situation on our own. Had a resource been available that would have allowed a mediation and handling of the issue early on, I feel that the resulting situation could have been avoided.

Someone recently referred to the TalkBoard as the Legislative Branch of the FlyerTalk government. If this is successful, perhaps it could be spun off into a separate Judicial service to the community.

A personal attack, to me anyway, is one that is a direct affront to the person being addressed especially when it adds nothing to the thread in question, but I also agree that simple disagreements in viewpoint do not often constitute such an attack. That being said, the majority of us are mature adults and we know when a personal attack on someone is taking place. It is fine to express an alternate viewpoint, but when it becomes personal, then it becomes out of line.

I'm not sure it is possible to eliminate personal attacks altogether. After all, it is a diverse community we belong to and some people are adamant about their viewpoints. I am comfortable with the current moderator functions as they exist in regard to this issue and have found the moderators to be exceptionally adept at defusing situations that are getting out of hand, especially in Omni - where it seems most personal attacks occur. However, if a TalkBoard member or a member at large were to float some suggestions by the TalkBoard (and I was on it), I would certainly give their thoughts on the matter due diligence.

I guess my standpoint is that, generally speaking, Randy has developed an effective way of dealing with situations like this, which I perceive to be as follows:

1) have the moderator of a forum issue a warning to the combatants - offline or online.

2) close the thread if they continue and report the situation to Randy.

3) if they persist in other threads, a time out issued by Randy.

4) if they become vitriolic with his decision or continue to persist, a longer time out period (6 months - 1 year) is usually considered.

5) perhaps after continual struggles a permanent ban is called for, but I think this should really be for documented incorrigibles.

I might have it all wrong, but this seems to have been how it has worked in the past and if it isn't broken, why fix it?

Sincerely,

William R. Sanders
Customer Service Coordinator
Starwood Preferred Services

[email protected]

A quick introduction, my name is Charles M. Kunz, I am from Rye, New York (A Westchester County Suburb) and I am a freshman at Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona.

Now to the question. The definition of a personal attack is one of the most subjective questions but I'm glad I can weigh in my response. To me, a personal attack is an unwarrented comment that has no element of wit or humor and is only meant to make the victim look and feel stupid and humiliated. The way I plan to stop them is to impose harsher penalties for repeat offenders and to have closer moderation of forums. Also locking threads when they appear to be headed towards a battle that will invovle personal attacks, cutting off the head of the viper before it has a chance to strike so to speak. Comments that contain wit and are meant in a its all in good fun sort of way will be tolerated to a point, there should be no repeated attacks on any one user. I am not trying to become a sort of goderator here, I just don't want people being humiliated and feeling that they don't belong here because we all contribute useful items here and we all should feel wanted and welcome at all times.
Thank You.

------------------
DC-10's Forever!

Absolutely. And, I trust, you feel the same way about trolling? I feel that trolling is a far more rampant problem on FT, and am curious to read your thoughts on the matter, specifically in light of the following two threads:


http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000744.html

and

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum97/HTML/000736.html




------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

I have thought long and hard about this question.

First, what is the definition of a personal attack? I have seen MANY instances where a member cites personal attacks, when IMO, there was none.

In the instances where personal attacks are occurring, I would like to see the moderators have the STRONG backing of both Randy and the TB.

In my opinion, there are a handful of members who are given vast leeway on the TOS. This needs to stop. A member with 100 posts should be dealt with in the same fashion as a member with 100,000 posts.

As a member of the TB, I would lobby Randy to give the moderators stronger backing in dealing with TOS violations. I would also lobby Randy to make TOS enforcement equal.

An unwarranted and off-topic reply. Take your Avek bashing elsewhere as it's not appreciated here. Behaviour like this from a moderator is IMHO very saddening.

Until the issue of "trolling" is added to the Flyertalk TOS I don't see any reason why the Talkboard should act on it nor do I see why this serious thread should be used as yet another oppurtunity to rehash these old issues. Everyone seems to have settled down on it besides you.

Let's ask ourselves for a second when a moderator somehow lost his/her ability to ask a question of a talkboard candidate? By the logic in your attempt at character assasination above, if moderators are somehow held to a higher standard and fewer opprotunities, then a talkboard candidate should be scrutinized down to the shoesize.

Further, unless you have been appointed to moderate this particular forum, your statement about the quality and/or merits of my initial response holds no water, above and beyond your own opinion. And we know what they say about opinions.....

Quote:

<font face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif" size="2">Until the issue of "trolling" is added to the Flyertalk TOS I don't see any reason why the Talkboard should act on it nor do I see why this serious thread should be used as yet another oppurtunity to rehash these old issues. Everyone seems to have settled down on it besides you.

Was it ever really settled? It continues today, unabated. I find it ironic that you started http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum...L/000736.html, and yet seem to defend the practice now. Amazing. Or, to put it rather bluntly, ScottC declaring that it is a dead issue does not make it so for thousands of others who must deal with it regularly on various forums. You need to seriously consider the views of various flyertalk members, particularly in light of your own candidacy for the talkboard.

That's fine. People can read. People will vote.

I await an actual answer to my original question instead of the (what I assume will be multiple) efforts to shoot the messenger.

------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

Decided to delete my post...

[This message has been edited by ScottC (edited 07-29-2003).]

For the record, I have very large feet.

I wear a size 15 shoe myself...



------------------
Thank you for choosing Continental Airlines, a proud member of the SkyTeam Alliance.

FWIW, I wear a size 9 shoe and I believe that in the vast majority of the situations I've seen ...trolling and personal attacks or perceived seem to go hand in hand, and should be treated accordingly. The sandbox fights are getting tedious, and I believe that all parties involved should be held accountable.

My definition of personal attack is pretty simplistic.. Insults, harrassment or defamation of a person or person's opinion/beliefs/values.

While I don't believe that it is a function of the Talkboard itself to keep the flaming under control, I would like to think that (with guidance from Randy) some disciplinary guidelines could be set up for which the moderators would be empowered to act upon.