Randy has been pretty busy lately, but you'll see the new News policy in place very soon, if not already.

Thanks for clarifying Spiff

If I read Spiff's responses correctly, this was a request by Randy to give feedback on the NW News Sub-Forum. I don't think that this was an invitation for more news related threads than are already being posted.

Again, If I read Spiff correctly, I hope that everyone shows some restraint and do not start flooding the forums with any and all news articles that merely mentions an airline or hotel.

No, his request was not Northwest-specific.

So, this does not address the sub-forum?

It does address the sub-forum, which was already in place when Randy came to us asking for our feedback.

However, it does not only address the NW sub-forum, but is a much broader policy for all news posts.

But, the biggest hue and cry about the NW sub-forum was "all the other forums do it this way, why can't we".

I look at this as simply saying: OK NW is going to be just like all the other forums ALREADY are. I do not read this as an open invitation for a large influx of news related threads simply because the airline/hotel is mentioned.

If I am wrong and that it the new "policy", be prepared for more than two discussions going on at one time. There are many news stories that mention competitors in passing or as examples.

If an article is about airline A removing F/C and mentions that airlines B, C & D are not, that should not be an invitation to post threads in the forums for B, C & D.

Item 1 in your OP states "references". I see people saying "Airline B is referenced, so I started a thread".

That is what I am afraid of happening.

That's why we have:

3. Where a news article meets the qualifications cited in both paragraphs 1 and 2 it may be cross-posted in Newstand and the specific forum. If moderators see that cross-posted threads are continuing to duplicate each other (as opposed to taking their own paths) they will have the option of merging the threads into the forum they consider most appropriate.

Please address any concerns that you have about this aspect of the new policy to Randy directly. Please do not discuss them here, as this is not the place for such discussions to take place. :)

Paragraph three does not address my concern about threads being started in 3, 4 or as many as 5 different forums. It is specific to Newstand and an individual forum. There should be clearer wording that the airline/hotel program mentioned must be the primary focus of the article.

Also, why would I question Randy. He went to the TB for "guidance". I am questioning the guidance that was given.

Are we not allowed to ask questions about action taken by the TB?

On August 19, one NW member posted 21 separate threads with news links, so I can certainly understand your concern.

Judging from the titles alone (and without reading the threads), I presume that most of these could have been put into the three strike threads you have as stickies.

TalkBoard is not going to get involved in telling your moderators how to handle each particular thread. Not only is it not our right to do so it is not even our desire.

Presumably, NW moderators will look at threads with news links, decide if they duplicate already exisiting threads, add new information to those threads, are worthy of standing as threads by themselves, or are simply nuisance threads that have no business being on the forum.

They will then handle them accordingly.

The TalkBoard decision merely tells them that if a newslink is worthy of being a thread by itself and if it is specific to Northwest Airlines, then the Northwest forum is the place it should appear.

So, you are saying that you have no problem with a poorly worded suggestion to Randy adding to the workload of our already over-worked moderators?

The suggestion to Randy does not state that. If in fact all Randy asked for was feedback on the NW News Sub-Forum, then the suggestion to Randy should have been to eliminate it.

CameraGuy, it seems that most people have understood the resolution very well as it is worded now. And for the one or two posters who might have wanted to understand it in a different way than it was meant, it was clarified by Spiff (and confirmed by two other TalkBoard members, Dovster and myself):

You might not like this recommendation, and you are free to ramble on and on about how you do not like its wording or what the wording "should have been" (in your opinion) or whatever, but at the latest at this point, it is hardly unclear what TalkBoard had meant. You just need to read Spiff's two posts I quoted.

So, now I guess we don't have a 9 member TB, we have one. Spiff.

Admit the poor wording and fix it. Why is that so hard.

Spiff is the spokesman for the TalkBoard. And if someone from the TalkBoard disagreed with something Spiff reported, they could certainly speak up. Have you seen that happen with regards to this vote?

Once again (even though I have to admit it feels like talking to a brick wall), just because you personally feel that the wording is bad or whatever, there is no need to "fix" anything. It is very clear what TalkBoard has meant (at least to everyone except you and maybe one other poster, it seems).

Amazing that even when a loophole is pointed out, there is no desire whatsoever to fix it.

This has the potential to add a dramatic amount of work to the already high workload of the moderators. Why is it so hard to admit that the section dealing with "referencing" a program vs "Program Specific" needs to be addressed?