May happen someday but not initially.

OMNI and OMNI/PR are very labor-intensive as is and the inclusion of images would necessitate a great deal more monitoring of the threads and posts.

Let's see how this goes in the general forums before deciding to roll it out in the OMNI's.

As a moderator, I do not feel comfortable shutting off a function that the TB has enabled. If the TB means for the moderator team to have such discretion, it should be detailed in the motion.

Otherwise, I would assume I have been directed to allow images in my forums.

William

Not to speak for Cholula, but I took him to mean that moderators have several tools to deal with potential abuses (including using animated images) by single posters or even a community of posters.

Absolutely.

A forum moderator can deal with problem images or problem image-posters one at a time as they do with those who abuse the system with the written word.

Or if the situation gets out of control, they can shut down the whole imaging system temporarily or permanently in their forum....a great tool which is not available for the written word.

And if the individual members choose not to see images, they can shut it down with the flick of a switch. And change their minds an hour later if they desire.

I think we're making a bigger issue than need be over this feature. This is the 21st Century folks and allowing images on an IBB is not exactly ground-breaking or trend-setting. We've already tested this for months in a number of forums and the total number of serious issues we encountered were zero.

The position seems to have changed during this thread. At the start Mods has discresion, now we only have it in the case of abuse.

I think the motion as drafted means that pics will be compulsory for all forums - except OMNI and OMNI/PR

Just for clarity.

I'm against this proposal as written. I'm a mod in 3 forums and would endorse it in two (Hyatt and National) but not in GLBT (where it would be way too easy to include images that are too "explicit" - intentionally or not). In GLBT, as it currently stands, probably 1/4 or so of the links have to be removed as being too "explicit" and we have to check on every single link posted.

I would support a proposal for allowing pictures in the "core" forums (Airlines, Hotels, Rental Cars) as well as "selected and specified" other forums.

It seems to me that situation would be covered by this interpretation, which I believe makes this proposal workable. In effect, let mods use their good judgment:

But we need the proposal re-written to include this don't we?

Yes we do need to refine the proposal - otherwise we're headed towards some of the catastrophe's of last year's TB proposals.

My "proposal" would be: Allow images in the "core" forums (Airlines, Hotels, Car Rentals) and other forums as deemed appropriate (but not required). Adjust the wording to fit.

Please see the original motion above.

The wording already is "allowed".

This motion, if passed, allows the various forums to now add graphics. It does not require it in any forum.

Please don't add the word "require" to a motion where it never existed nor was ever intended.

Does that mean moderators are permitted to ban a tool which the TOS allows?

Which gets back to my question -- what if a mod doesn't want images but a clear majority of posters DO want them?

So whose permission is required?

I read the motion as images being allowed in all non-OMNI forums.
Thus I could post a few photos of an Avis rental in the (unmoderated) Avis forum.

Until there are objections. When/if there are problems or objections, then the functionality may be swtched off for that forum.

For today's objecting mods - perhaps the motion can allow images subject to the agreement of both the users/contributors and the manager(s) of the forum? Obviously, this is at the discretion of Randy and Senior Mods of 'unmoderated forums as described above.

Those whose forums have 'images issues' can work through them without affecting other forums.
Alternatively, have a 60 day trial period; then keep or don't allow images, according to advice from your users and colleagues.

I'm not bothered or opposed but think that a thorough rollout is a good way to begin, but subject to suspension whenever there are risks that FT management may consider harmful to users.

Can we keep it relatively simple, broad and with a review period for contentious areas/risks?

From my reading, the motion is not clear as to whether:
a) the motion "allows" FTers to post images in all forums (regardless of the desires of the forum moderators; though they would still be able to moderate-out any objectional images) or
b) all forums are "allowed" to permit images (if the mods/posters want images).

Without clarification in the motion itself, I would appreciate hearing from TB members which interpretation they used when voting.