gleff

As it should be, IMHO.

PremEx

Punki writes: I'm sorry, but having read his post, I thought he was extremely clear about what he thought it had to do with TalkBoard. Among many other reasons for posting that he clearly communicated, was this:

Personally, I would have made my suggestion direct to Randy. But if a member can't make a suggestion addressed to the TalkBoard in the TalkBoard Issues forum...what's a member to do? Email them all individually????

wharvey

I am very surprised at Punki's question.

I thought I was very clear.

The Talkboard had recommended the creation of the GLBT forum... and I thought it appropriate I come to them to address my request to change the definition of the forum.

Regardless of how the moderators say they are moderating the forum, the definition is clear and based on what was said I would say they are not moderating to the definition.

When I emailed Randy, he agreed with me and said that he would communicate with the moderators... I have no way of knowing if he did that... but am guessing not.

Believe it or not, I want the forum to be more broad and allow a variety of topics such as the Women's Forum. But I can tell you that several people I have talked to will not post there due to the defintion.

Again, surprised at Punki's questioning my request.

Oh well.

William

Punki

I guess I just don't see how the TalkBoard has anything to say about what folks post in any forum.

As I recall, I was on TalkBoard at the time that both the Women's Forum and the GLBT Forum were discussed. At the time I left, discussion was, I believe closed, and there was nothing left to do but vote. Of course I could be wrong, but I don't really remember any greater restrictions being place on the GLBT forum than on the Women's Forum. Did that come along after I resigned?

Why is the GLBT forum so restrictive? Why shouldn't folks be able to discuss gay marriage in the GLBT forum? Doesn't make a lot of sense to me.

What I specifically don't understand is why TalkBoard, rather than the moderators and Randy, would be involved in making forum content decisions. As long as the topic is more or less relevant to the topic and no one is attacked or hurt, who cares what is posted?

I think some people worry way too much about other people's posts.

FewMiles

So your tenure (albeit a prematurely terminated one) on TalkBoard also did not help to contribute anything positive to FT?

FewMiles..

FewMiles

The point is that the forum "rules" are defined in such a way that some of the topics that certain posters feel should be discussed in that forum cannot be because they are off-topic. Being a matter of opinion or interpretation, it's understandable that some (or many) might disagree with wharvey. But, we can't adopt the "just post anywhere" mentality when FT is trying to move in the direction of keeping posts in their proper places so that forums stay on topic and so that people can find the information they are looking for. This means, no doubt, a more strict interpretation of forum descriptions etc. Otherwise, taken further, this will mean that any topic could conceivably be posted anywhere, e.g. I could post a topic in AS or UA (because I was comparing it to UA) or in the SEA airport forum (because I happened to be at that airport that day) or in TravelBuzz (because I'm talking travel, after all) or in MilesBuzz (because this is segment #x of some big promo run I'm on) or in FT Community (because I happened to run into so-and-so at the airport) or ...

If this be the case, then perhaps you shouldn't be worrying about wharvey bringing up something he would like discussed with TalkBoard?

FewMiles..

Punki

I have discussed this issue with wharvey and think that it is an excellent idea that he raise the question. His point is absolutely valid.

What I don't understand is how or why the discussion on the GLBT board became so hyper-restrictive. I do not recall that being the intent of the TalkBoard at the time the forum was under discussion. What happened?

It would seem to me that the very common sense moderation formula which Techgirl has above-outlined for the Womens Forum would work perfectly well for the GLBT forum. What's the difference?

techgirl

I'm guessing that this would really belong in the "other" active forum in TalkBoard Issues, but since it has bleed over here, I will comment here.

While I was NOT on TalkBoard, I do recall the nature of the debate over a GLBT forum before the inaugural TalkBoard ever took their positions. At that point in time, there was a lot of e-mail circulating among a group of GLBT individuals or those who supported their crusade to get a GLBT forum created.

I'm going to speak to my position at that point in time and how I came to be one of the folks supporting moderation because one very specific event triggered my thoughts on how *destructive* ANY micro-communities in FT could potentially be. At one point in time, a FTer posted to that private e-mail list and said that he/she had systemwide upgrades to offer up for free but that he/she would only give them to a member of the GLBT community. I remember feeling a sinking gut feeling that having the GLBT forums be TOO open to any type of posting could create division in the community. Can you imagine the outcry, for example, if I wanted to give away my systemwides... but only to a woman? Or only to a white professional? Folks would scream. I mean, they are mine to give away (and let's not have this debate again because it seems to surface from time to time)... but in that case, FT is not the appropriate place for me to post that because putting in all sorts of rules that divide the community are not in the best interests of FT.

Randy has made it clear in the past that if you want to have a gathering and ONLY allow certain individuals (those under 30, for example) or want to give away SWUs but only want to give them to certain people, that there might be BETTER places on the internet to post those things other than FT. And as such, the reason that I advocated a specific definition for the forum (be it GLBT or Womens or any other special interest forum to be created) was that the community not suffer by having a degree of exclusivity that hurts those who are not a member of that subgroup.

In my ideal group definition, there is plenty of semi-off topic discussion and bonding. Individual FT forums can retain their distinct personality but won't become "cliques" where we don't share the goodies (be it airline/hotel promo codes, giveaways, or gatherings) with those who we deem to be "not like us".

Punki

That certainly makes sense, Techgirl, but I would be suprised if those were the types of posts to which wharvey referred.

I don't read the GLBT board so I am trusting his opinon that it is more restrictive than the Women's forum, without really having seen any specific examples. If that is the case, then that doesn't seem right.

I love the Weight Watchers thread in the Women's forum and to me it definitely relates to travel--frequent travel presents many specific challenges--and weight watching for women is assuredly different than weight watching for men. Would, however, a GLBT Weight Watchers thread be appropriate? I honestly don't know but am trying to figure out how and why the GLBT forum is different than the Women's forum.

gleff

I'm not yet sure what I think about this. I don't visit either Women Travelers or GLBT often. Since the TalkBoard was asked to comment I've been trying to get a feel for each forum and educate myself. And FWIW I did start a thread on the subject in the TB forum the same day that wharvey made his request.

I'm not persuaded that GLBT should operate the same as Women Travelers, per se. Different forums have their own unique character that develops out of the individuals frequenting those forums. Write the rules exactly the same and the postings and tenor of conversation will still be different.

Probably the archetypical example of this would be Air Canada (unmoderated) on one extreme, which in addition to discussion of Aeroplan serves as a sort of Canadian OMNI. And I actually think that works well. But the United forum (moderated) isn't OMNI-Chicago, OMNI-SFO, or OMNI-Denver. And the comeraderie is certainly different in flavor between United and, say, Delta (of which I am a moderator).

Like forums don't necessarily operate the same way. And formal rules or descriptions don't entirely dictate outcomes, either.

I'm not sure that there's anything wrong with status quo approach to moderation in that forum, but I'm reading and trying to educate myself as a member trying to better understand the community.

wharvey

Gleff,

I do agree that different forums have different personalities. However, the GLBT forum is different in the very description from the Women's Forum. GLBT is restricted to GLBT travel ONLY while the Women's forum (as an example) is open to anything remotely related to women's issues or interests. So, if the forum is restrictive up front, you prohibit people from creating a true personality for the board.

For example, I believe the conversations on Single Sex Marriage would have been much more cordial and calm in the GLBT forum - but it would be off limits there. But I guarantee a discussion on marriage in general in the Women's Forum would be left alone.

Let me be clear... I do not want to see the Women's Forum restricted... I find great delight in the readings the few time I visit.

But I do believe the GLBT forum should be given some latitude also... and I want it to be more "formalized" than a moderator or two who decides to moderate based on their beliefs than the definition.

For example, in the GLBT forum there is a thread for Itineraries. Now, I would say based on the current definition (and discouragement on cross posting) those threads should not be in the GLBT forum. Randy agrees with me and has indicated so in an email. So, why are they still open? They should be in the general Itineraries threads on the FT Miles forum.

My biggest concern with this is that it looks like people are setting up a sub-community. When the Palms Spring DO was announced... more information was found on the GLBT forum and it was obvious that it was positioned as a gay event. It finally made it to the General Community forum... but I believe one reason few non GLBT FTers attended was due to the fact that little conversion occurred on the main community board.

Football Fan

I am slightly confused as to why this discussion is suddenly in this thread?

Could it be that Punki accidentally posted in the wrong thread and everyone decided to just carry on with the discussion which should be in the other thread nonetheless?

With regards to my question posed in this thread, I have to conclude that the TalkBoard has not managed to come up with an "official" response to my request in more than 3 weeks time. Therefore, it seems that they would prefer to keep their activity level away from the eyes of the rest of Flyertalk. I figure they don't want us to be in awe. Impressive .

FewMiles

We'll if you haven't learned yet, you'll see that Punki thought it was relevant to this thread, ergo it must be true. WWPD, right? The subsequent posts were replies to that. It's the nature of discussion. No big deal.

What exactly would constitute an official reply? Have you failed to understand (perhaps yet again) that TB is an advisory board and that there is no way for them to have an official reply other than to have Randy speak? The individual TB members can only speak for themselves, and not for TB.

FewMiles..



[This message has been edited by FewMiles (edited Mar 15, 2004).]

Starwood Lurker

We've been discussing attorney28's suggestion since February 25th. Five of the current seven members of the TalkBoard were not in favor of changing the status quo as of March 8th. I made a motion to keep it as it is - a private forum for elected/appointed TalkBoard members on March 9th. So far, no one has seconded it, so it looks like the issue/suggestion will be tabled.

Sincerely,

William R. Sanders
Customer Service Coordinator
Starwood Preferred Services

[email protected]

ScottC

Thanks for the update William