Analise

As a voter in FT, I prefer to have as much information available in order to make a decision as to whom I think best represents what is good for the future of Flyertalk in the next year.

To that end, I think it makes sense to find out which candidates had to be banned from using FT. Why? Wouldn't this take away a candidate's right to keep his or her personal business at FT private? I understand that concern.

I feel that this "right" vanished as soon as that person stepped forward publicly to run for an office in which his or her own membership to FT has been taken away because of some negative incident. If people can't act on their best professional behavior while they are running for an elected position, then how can we voters expect them to be professional as elected TB members? I think a voter's need for full information about the professionalism of the candidates has to supercede a candidate's need to keep quiet the news that he or she was banned. Keeping the reason for banning private is something to which I can agree---I may not like that as I think people's actions should be up for scrutiny if they want others to consider voting for them.

Anyone else agree? Maybe I'm wrong. If so, please explain to me why. Thanks.

kokonutz

I dunno, Analise, it seems like talking about this subject here is a dicey proposition.

But I DO believe that there ought to be:

-public announcements of disciplinary action
-open-to-public public discussion (read-only) of all TB discussions
-open-to-public (read-only) discussions among moderators

Those last two are less important than the first if only because the closed-door discussions are de facto open to the public since there ARE no secrets between so many diverse people on a medium like the Internet.

What I mean to say is that I believe that Randy ought to believe these things. But he doesnt. So there it is.

Analise

I don't know what Randy believes or does not believe as I haven't entered his mind lately----not that I was invited. Of course, I haven't extended similar invitations myself.

Nevertheless, if someone is banned while running for office, how are the voters to know that they are voting for those who can't seem to stay away from trouble at the very time they want others to vote for them as professionals?

bhatnasx

I understand what you're saying & I can agree to that to an extent. I don't necessarily believe that the discussion of TB & Mods (and note that I am currently neither a Mod nor a TB member) should be public. I believe that for any announcements of the disciplinary action, the person(s) who have carried out the disciplinary actions should be required to give their reasoning & supportive arguements (be accountable & show reason) - I don't believe that there should be a read-only insight to the deliberations on disciplinary cases - that's like getting into the jury room of a trial. However, I don't think that the either group should have anything to hide.

I guess I view the TalkBoard as elected officials (and I think that having their discussions as read only wouldn't be a negative thing) & the appointed mods as Judges & Jurors (which is why I feel okay with having closed discussions amongst this group). I don't see any problems with a particular member of the FT community being both a Mod & a TB member.

squeakr

Once issue we mods deal with, is that to date, Randy's decision is that reasonings behind bannings NOT be made public. I think at least some of us mod corps (of which I am one) would prefer that we have at least some standard phrasings to help explain why someone is banned. However, for now we don't have that leeway and any individual mod who wants to reveal that info is on their own and going against Randy's express wishes.

One of the toughest parts of being a mod is going through the "why was X banned and not Y?" Sometimes there ISN'T as clear an answer as someone would like - and that strikes to the heart of some of the issues. While there are rules and standards of conduct, being a mod IS working for an absentee boss who mostly steps into the breech where a BIG problem occurs.

In UAL at least, where there is more than one mod, we do have the opportunity to bounce ideas off each other. And I think our moderation there works partly because we DO have that outlet.

For one-mod fora, it's a little tougher. Sometimes it IS the aggregate of posts from a particular poster that spawns a ban. Sometimes there is info that the poster is posting similar "junk" on other fora. And I don't doubt sometimes there is bias. And I DO wish some mods could refrain from entering EVERY fray that might concern them.

But I don't think opening up the banning process or "deliberations" about a particular poster is going to help those who fuss the most. In a multi-mod discussion, I want the freedom to say, "I don't care for this poster so I'm going to abstain from this decision" or "So and SO sent me a nasty email about this issue so I know they are upset" without holding that up for EVERY FT'er to say. Not because I'm embarrassed, but that I don't think it helps. ALL of us mods, at least in the multi mod chats and discussions I have been a part of, take our responsibility very seriously, and I think the membership would be impressed HOW LITTLE idle gossip or chatter goes on.

THAT SAID - I wish that ALL members, mods are not, would take a look at the areas in which THEY are more susceptible to bias or lack of respect and think VERY CAREFULLY before they post something negative or inflammatory.

se94583

I think the banning process should be made public in the future, as it has (rightly or wrongly) raised concerns of bias and favoritism in the past.

I would also advocate some sort of appeal to the moderator pool at large for someone facing banishment, so that person can make his/her case or offer contrition to the larger group before permament action is made. Especially with regard to "lifetime" bans; at least a majority of active mods should vote for the ban rather than a few. Let the mod who wants to ban that person advocate thusly, let the banee explain what happened, and then call for a vote. That way, snap decision by mods (who are only human also, and sometimes get caught up in the heat of the moment) can be forestalled pending reasoned thought.

From Randy's perspective, it would take some of the pressure and time off of him as the "Supreme Court" regarding these matters.

That said, I would say about 99.9% of discipline and bannishment concerns have evaporated with OMNI's closure.

FewMiles

Having been timed out before, I can speak with experience.

A user is only ever banned for one reason: violating the TOS.

I did something not good and was asked to take a few days off. I used that time off to take a break and reflect on how I was taking things to personally and as Randy asks the members of FT now and then: Are you contributing to the problem or helping to work toward the solution? When I came back, I knew I want to be on the solution side of the equation. Do I want another time out? Heck no! Of course not!

Analise, I don't think you are wrong. All candidates need to be on their best behaviour, but isn't that true for all members all the time? As for candidates stepping forward being subject to more than usual scrutiny, yes I agree, this is also to be expected.

But current moderation practise and policy (as per Randy's directive to the moderators) is that bannings and reasons behind them are not discussed in public as it is felt that it only opens up another can of worms. This belief is subject to debate, naturally, but I think you can appreciate the perspective of both sides of the issue.

FewMiles..

ScottC

When it comes to permanent bans I don't think I have EVER seen a "snap decision". Every permanent ban I have been involved in has been a very long and tedious process before the decision was made, and even then it was not taken lightly.

Dovster

FlyerTalk has two policies: The first is not to keep secret the fact that someone is banned (indeed it appears under his name).

The second is not to reveal the reason for the ban.

It would therefore logically follow that there is no reason for FlyerTalk to withhold the number of bans a candidate has had.

The candidate, however, should be free to explain the ban. ("I called another FlyerTalker a filthy name when I was posting drunk" or "I posted an entire copyrighted article from a newspaper in violation of forum rules.")

If the candidate does not want to explain the ban, voters can make any assumptions about his reasons that they want.

If he does decide to explain the ban and the moderators involved disagree with what he says, he should then lose any expectation of privacy. The moderators would be free to tell it as they see it and the membership would have to decide who to believe.

squeakr

I beleive Randy has to approve a permanent ban.

kokonutz

Have you READ TB, ORP and Technical questions lately? More locks than in a seedy gym locker room!

gleff

As a technical matter I don't think that's correct. Randy can certainly reverse a permanent ban, so I suppose a ban can only remain permanent with Randy's approval. But a ban can be set to permanent by a moderator. I've done it myself with spammers dropping porn links on several forums.

I believe this is more a function of the software than of Flyertalk policy.

Bans didn't used to get officially announced under the old software. A few times Randy did take the extraordinary step of posting about member discipline, but that was hardly the rule. In fact, he said more than once that such matters were between him and the member. He didn't want it to distract from other members enjoying Flyertalk and discussions about miles and points.

The new software displays member status, or (and I'm not techie) rather I believe that it displays the 'group' that a member belongs to. And when a member is under timeout for any duration, including permanently, the member is transferred to the 'banned' group. And so that gets displayed.

I suspect it's simply an unintended consequence that this procedure informs the community generally that a member has been the subject of disciplinary action.

And to my mind it's regrettable, because it's used as a club against some members... whether to bludgeon them for their past actions, or against moderators for the decisions they've taken.

Now, plenty of members may be worthy of condemnation. Goodness knows I've posted things that I probably should not have.

But there's a reason that for the oft-repeated maxim on bans is that they are reviewable only by Randy. He has lifted some. Usually all a member has had to do is apologize to him and articulate how they plan to behave differently in the future. He's pretty soft on members that way.

And there's a reason that the maxim on moderator complaints is (1) email the moderator (2) email Randy.

In either case, making a public airing only serves to take away from the core of the board and to generate animosity among members.

se94583

Just caught up on all that blow-back. Which, sadly, is QED for the theory that OMNI is popping up throughout the board.

More "characters", vendettas, and posturing than at a professional wrestling match!


Brainflash: why can't we change our handle names? Maybe as a once-in-a-lifetime option??? Seems if someone wants to escape the fray, that might give the person an opportunity to "turn over a new leaf."

skofarrell

A small nit: because a default feature in the new board software shows "banned" as the "title" under a members name does not make it FT "policy" that banned is "not secret".

skofarrell

Posted too quick. I meant to say what gleff said.