graraps

I agree. I'm AGAINST a forum centred around charity.

wharvey

Based on the recent discussions, I wanted to bring this back to the top.

I had suggested this several months ago.... and still feel it is appropriate if we want to allow charity solicitations on FT.

Another member suggested in another thread about just letting individuals post their own charity requests... and this forum could be such a "SPAM ALLOWED" forum.

Thoughts?

hinsopa

Since my cancer diagnosis I have seen one real unmet need. The different nonprofit organizations that do conferences and retreats have limited scholarship $$ to cover registrations, etc. However, they require participants to arrange and pay for their own transportation, which is very reasonable since their funds are limited. I have had a dream of coordinating efforts to have donations of tickets for these events so more can attend. It really keeps survivors current and hearing and talking to the doctors is invaluable when your treatment options are slim. If we really want to meet an unmet need this would be a wonderful way and not take much effort. I would certainly volunteer my time to help. My background is mental health, as well as having worked for charities. Not as easy as just listing charities but much more innovative and helpful in my mind. Thanks for your consideration.

tom911

hinsopa-

Is there a specific charity you have in mind? If so, you might want to PM any of the TalkBoard members and see if they'll discuss it in the private TalkBoard forum and consider a vote on it.

wharvey

In another thread, a Talkboard member posted: "TalkBoard was not tasked with determining whether a charity's value system was "agreeable". We were tasked with determining the legitimacy of a charity. If this task needs to change, it should be through a formal motion to change the function of TB's involvement with FlyerTalk Cares, not through intimidation and harrassment."

I would therefore like to ask the Talkboard to consider changing its charter around the approval of charities.

My recommendation:

- The Talkboard immediately suspends its current process for approving charities.
- The Talkboard approve the creation of a "Charities Solicitation" Forum (or whatever name you want) as a Forum under "Community". In this forum, any member can start a thread for a charity or organization. Other members are free to chime in with support or criticisms of such forums. All charity discussions on Flyertalk are to stay in this forum. If a particular charity has relations to other forums, (ie. Women's Forum, Delta, GLBT, BA) then a thread can be started to indicate there is a thread in the Charities Forum and all discussions should take place in that forum.

Once this is approved, the Talkboard has no further involvement in the approval of charities for Flyertalk members. Each member can decise for him/herself whether to support a charity.

I hope the Talkboard considers this suggestion.

magiciansampras

+ 1

cblaisd

+2

This would also significantly lessen the personal liability exposure of individual TalkBoard members.

tcook052

-1

Allowing people to argue the pro's and con's of a particular charity, it's work or it's sponsors could spawn many heated confrontations and who would eventually want to post in such a forum and risk the potential wrath of many others? And what would stop some from posting simply to promote a controversial or confrontational agenda? Or would moderation keep the debate on a somewhat civil level?

While not wanting to be the pessimist I see some room for a less than positive forum developing but that's just MHO and I appreciate OP making suggestions.

work2fly

I'd like to see FT stop allowing any commercial or charitable solicitations.

It would enable us to focus all of collective energy on miles, points, travel, etc. and avoid train wrecks similar to what we have here.

iff

I agree with your suggestions in general; however, if such a forum were created, I believe it should be read-only or else it could easily turn into a war zone. There could also be a disclaimer at the top stating that FlyerTalk itself does not endorse any of the organizations mentioned. It would be up to the readers to do their research and act accordingly.

Another option instead of a forum might be to allow an approved sig line where posters can promote their causes with a link to more info. If it begins with FLYERTALKERS CARE: it will be easily seen and distinguishable from spam postings.

wharvey

I would expect this forum to be under the same rules as any other forum... and would expect it would have a dedicated moderator team or the Senior Mods.

I would not want to stifle debate... look what came out when we allowed members to get engage. Information that the TB did not see came to light. I believe hearty and civil debate would be valuable.

sushibear

I believe a statement such as this would have alleviated much of the discussion of the MTW issue because it moves a cause from the general endorsement arena into the individual opinion arena. Each FTer who is interested in a particular charity is tasked with the job of research and can then make an individual decision about supporting it, or not. Then the support of an organization will not be seen as coming from a representative voice speaking for FlyerTalk.

sushibear

I think that would be the way to go. If anyone feels that a post does not fit within the FlyerTalk TOS, the "bad post" icon can be hit so that it could be dealt with in the manner already established for every other post which a member might find offensive.

peteropny

I also support this proposal - separate forum for FT Charities (or whatever name might be better). Another refinement might be to only allow posts from members that have passed a certain milestone (posts/time) like Coupon Connection and OMNI. I don't believe in making it post only and no discussion but of course the discussion needs to be moderated.

iff

I do agree that allowing discussion would be valuable (certainly the current exchanges on this topic demonstrate that); my only thought in suggesting read-only was in regard to the moderators as that could potentially be a very demanding forum moderation-wise. Perhaps no more so than some others on FT, though.

That seems like a good idea.