TalkBoard Topics forum...

In a previous post, I alluded to my belief that endorsing the specific charity at the heart of the recent uproar directly contradicted FT's aim to create a community by turning various factions of FTers against each other.

I appreciate the time that TalkBoard and Randy have put into this matter, and I applaud their attempts to respond to members' concerns. I can only hope that future developments will bring clarification on how FT will continue, through its various efforts, to build a community where all its members feel engaged and welcome.

Hope the vacation is treating you well Randy. :cool:

(my emphasis)

That remark should not go unchallenged. I have no reason to doubt the good intentions of the requester and her daughter but...

As one of the many so-called ruthless excoriators I am proud of what was done to get the TB to see the offence it was causing (and also grateful to the narrow majority of TB who made the sensible decision to rescind their approval of this dreadful institution for the purposes of soliciting donations).

Those against were not an organised clique as has been alleged but so far I could see it fair minded people who could see the damage that TB's original decision would do to FT; the offence it would cause; and the sheer immorality of lending even the most tacit support to such an institution as the church in question. As to the last point the analogy of allowing a solicitation for the part of Hamas (if there is one) devoted to re-establishing Palestinian water supplies seemed a good one to me.

I too wish Randy an enjoyable holiday. I am not one of those who thinks that all charities should be banned from raising money on FT. Neither am I in any sense a militant gay rights activist. But I hope Randy will see the extreme unwisdom and patent immorality of allowing solicitations on behalf of any institution which promotes blatant discrimination against (and through all but the most rosy-tinted eyes promotion of hatred towards) an innocent minority and will do nothing to upset the decision that TB has reached.

This is a moral issue. And to accuse those who saw it as such and argued forcefully for what is right of being ruthless excoriators is, with respect, very unfair.

I agree totally with Dave's comments.

To confuse the site's purposes with charity can open a pandoras box of ongoing debate.

Hayden

Since just about two weeks have elapsed since the start of that one week vacation, I am speculating that we have our answer -- which is that there is going to be no answer. Alas.

I am disappointed given the nature of the situation how this effectively has been left hanging. Especially given the only partial-resolution by the Talkboard and closing down of all discussion pending Randy's response.

I'm hopeful that there's a good reason that we haven't heard the resolution of this whole topic, but I have to add that the impression (erroneous or not) that I get is that this entire issue is being swept under the proverbial rug. This impression is born mostly of frustration, but - hey, feelings are always valid, since they are by nature personal - and I'm definitely feeling frustrated as time passes.

This is in no way supposed to imply that the powers that be aren't putting in their due diligence, or are waiting for all of this goes away. The inaction, and the lack of updates, just makes it feel like that's the case.

I think Randy is on Vacation.....

I have found it fascinating that the true meaning of patience is giving attention to detail, which in Randy's demonstrated wisdom, no doubt, will be forthcoming. [ and your second to last sentence suggests.]

Frustration can be, not always, an unwillingness to face ones fears. Perhaps a call to a rug doctor? [s].

While waiting, perhaps a review of some of the studies on LSD in the late 50's would give some pause to "feelings are always valid". I prefer "Feelings are real most of the time".

Regards!

Just be patient, he'll respond. He's a busy guy. Even if he's back from vacation, he has more important things to deal with, I'm sure, and this internal meta-stuff is not and should not be at the top of his list. But he did say he would address it, so I have every confidence he will, when he gets time. That may be sometime in October? Who knows.

Suffice it to say that even if he doesn't address this, the MTTW resolution (approving it for FT promotion) HAS been rescinded and IMO, that is what is most important. And I guarantee you if he'd had a problem with the TB's rescission of their approval, he'd have stepped in way long ago.

And if he's had a problem with TB's motion in the first place he'd have stepped in even further back in time?

I'm happy to agree that things have been sorted out as far as TB's involvement goes. They took a position where they suggested MTW should be an FTC approved charity and is suitable for promotion on FT, and after representation they decided to rescind that approval.

The issue now stems from the fact that a TB motion is actually nothing but a recommendation to Randy. The very specific question to Randy is whether the first motion has been approved, and has the second been approved. Perhaps more practically what some of us are looking for is simply for Randy to go on record and state taht an organisation such as MTW has no place being promoted on FT.

As far as I'm concerned, Randy has given us a response and I'm fine with it:

1. The TB motion to rescind stands.
2. Randy has taken over responsibility for FlyerTalk Cares.
3. Without running the risk of stoking the fires further with respect to Mission to the World and similar charities, the pre-motion to approve status quo has been restored.

It is fascinating but, perhaps, not surprising the extent to which concerns on FT mirror concerns in society. In the US, the expression of religion is going to become an issue in the current election campaign. It's also become a recurrent and contentious (though, happily, so far civil and respectful) matter of debate in OMNI. In the US, the issue must be addressed. On FT, however, letting sleeping dogs lie (or, at least, as long as the dogs are active only in OMNI), seems quite an adequate solution for facilitating FT's primary mission: discussion of flying and travel.

I don't need Randy to tell us which side he thinks is "right." In this case, inaction is, I think, the best course of action.

Sorry for the delay in explaining what I saw in this recent FlyerTalk Cares matter. (I've got a large new Web site I'm trying to launch, have 9 people working on it and the deadline is slipping away, something I know most of you on occasion have challenges with as well.)

The matter was the TalkBoard approval of a charity request: Mission To The World:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=853589

There was a rather long thread allowing for continual debate about the issue and more:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=850346

With the TalkBoard taking an ever increasing amount of feedback on this issue and the tone and content of the discussion thread taking a negative turn even among the members contributing, I decided to step in, assume responsibility for the issue and put forth my thoughts and actions for the future. These are those steps.

First of all I'll address the actions of the TalkBoard on this one. In hindsight there are at least two elements which may have contributed to this breakdown of communication in the interpretation of the FlyerTalk Cares program. BUT, I can find no absolute fault of the TalkBoard in approving this motion. Let's start by looking at the original request: "A daughter of a member is going to Peru for a year on a medical mission. She will be working in a medical clinic and orphanage outside of Cusco."

In reading over the discussion that lead to the approval, they did provide a superficial look at the charity cause which was being submitted. While some members subsequently brought forth deeper interpretations of the charity in questions goals and operatives, it has not been part of the assignment of the TalkBoard to peruse the charity requests in a deeper manner. It may be argued that the motion was poorly worded, but that type of analysis only comes in hindsight. What we see is a simple medical mission. A young daughter wanting to go out and help others with the funds she was seeking used only for her living expenses. Medical missions occur daily and often, while the overall sponsor may be from a faith-based organization, the personal goals of the mission personnel are simple – to help. In reading the Web site of the actual person going on the medical mission, I did not see any connection to the deeper interpretations which some members later pointed out. But the wording of the charity request soon led others to delve deep into the sponsor organization rather than the person doing the charity work and that is where the miscommunication lie. Again, perhaps clearly identifying this as a medical mission might have helped, but regardless it's in the past and we can learn from the example.

The discussion took two different paths, one an argument that this particular charity request was supporting the purported anti-gay mission of the faith-based organization in question. And that FlyerTalk Cares should not be engaged in the support of any faith-based charity. What I do know is that there was nothing in the original request, nor the inspection of the mission's requestor or that of the requestors' parent member that indicated they supported in any way what may be a hidden or deeper statement of purpose for this faith-based organization. So for those who might have been lead to believe that the TalkBoard's approval meant that FlyerTalk was becoming supportive of any action or belief such as that - I want to put that to an end right now. As many of you know, I was the one who supported and introduced individual forums on FlyerTalk for such discussion related to travel and I remain fully committed to providing such support as necessary and will not have an environment that promotes hate on FlyerTalk. As some of you also know, I have suspended some members in the past just for such style-posting practices. Now, as to whether or not FlyerTalk Cares should approve any faith-based charities. This is probably one of the more difficult decisions I'll have to make on behalf of FlyerTalk and its members. I'm aware of the church/state arguments. I'm aware that not all faith-based initiatives can and would please everyone. I'm aware that ones preference of faith is not always compatible to anothers' and I'm aware that some faiths may have tendencies of belief outside our norm, whether U.S.-centric or otherwise. That's why this is such a challenge to rule on. The easy decision is simply to restrict charity requests from anything to do with faith-based. But, I do not personally believe that this is direct acknowledgement and support of religion in that we will not and do not approve requests that preach religion, but rather to groups or individuals who are helping to improve the lives of others. All I am saying is that in the general concept of FlyerTalk Cares, we will not discriminate against faith-based organizations. So far, we have ample proof that members of FlyerTalk through the FlyerTalk Cares program lead with their heart.

In reading the 624 posts in the above thread, there were at least two situations that I was very disappointed with. One was the ongoing argument between a TalkBoard member and general member as to whether there was any new information regarding this organizations past hate message. This debate was far too personal and far too drawn out. It would have been beneficial to both if the question of more recent "evidence" was available and as well a more civil exchange. As well, I was bothered by anothers reference to legal action against the TalkBoard. There are few things I hate more than the old two-by-four threat of legal action. First and foremost, the Board serves voluntarily by election and really, it's not cool to suggest any threat in this manner. They serve in an advisory role so if you think you really want to sue the TalkBoard because they approved a charity you don't agree with, please forward the summons to me personally and keep them out of the target zone. That is just not fair to that group - all of them.

Now, a situation like this can serve a purpose. It allows us to look over the manner in which we've previously operated with good intentions a program or effort on FlyerTalk. There's inherently nothing wrong with that and some times it will lead to clarity on some practices and other times it won't. With the FlyerTalk Cares program, the few calls to end the program were like a tear to me. For all my faults, the original purpose put forth of FlyerTalk was to provide a place to exchange and grow the personal knowledge of topics such as miles, points and travel. To a large degree, I think we've done that for tens of not hundreds of thousands of others. Along with that, and primarily what drives that is the idea of giving to others. FlyerTalk for all the concept of a community, does do that in the form of FlyerTalk Cares. I can't see discontinuing this program based on this one example that may have been more clearly presented to the members.

So, FlyerTalk Cares will continue as a part of the heritage of FlyerTalk. I will step back in and resume the approval process so that there will be no additional burden on the TalkBoard. In doing so, members can request to seek support among their fellow members here:
http://flyertalk.com/cares/

As well as look over the general goals on charities that have been approved. Of the changes that accompany my resumption of the responsibilities of the program are:
- Charity requests are available for consideration to active members only.
- Charity requests must be contained to a single forum identified by the member where they feel they are most comfortable among their fellow members.
- There will no longer be any public debate in the TalkBoard forum regarding these requests. They are personal in nature, particular to a forum's active members and as such probably do not need the extensive inspection of other members who do not wish to contribute or help the cause.
- I'll make sure because of the concerns of our members that I peruse any request in a manner that will safeguard any attempt to support proselytizing.
- And finally, while for some there is still the appearance of no separation of church/state, neither is there the separation of FlyerTalk/Caring.

Thank you for listening to me.

Thank you for the update Randy.

Cheers.

Thank you, Randy.

Thank you, Randy, for the time and thought that you put into this. As always, your approach and solution are fair, effective and in the best interest of the FlyerTalk community.