No, it is not "absurd". Just a different opinion than your own on a matter over which reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
It seems to me that there are tow problematic premises in your argument:
1) that one size fits all;
2) that moderation policy changes on the whim of the moderators.

Neither of these premises seem to me borne out by the facts nor desirable.

As to 1), there are significant variations in moderation style between fora. The BA forum is not moderated in the same way as, say, the United or AA forum (cf level of tolerance on OT threads, for instance). Different fora have different styles, different cultures and moderation reflects that. You might say: but this is different: we are not talking about style of moderation but rather features. Even on that, however, there are variations between fora. The BD forum makes great use of thread prefixes. Not so on the BA board, where the majority of posters, when consulted, were against that feature.
As to 2), again different fora have different styles and moderation adapts to the forum, rather than the forum adapting to the mods. I have not noticed a 90 degree turn in moderation policy with changes of moderators on the fora that I frequent. Moderation evolves along with changes to the style and contents of posts (cf BD forum, for instance).

It seems to me that Peteropny has presented a valid argument as to why he would feel uncomfortable with pics on the LGBT forum. In the same way as thread prefixes, pics make more or less sense and are more or less desirable depending on the particular forum.

As to your comment about the gay community being very savvy and perfectly capable of self-policing, are you suggesting that we don't need moderation in that forum, since the community is so savvy? Are you saying that the problems with explicit links are a figment of Peteropny's imagination?

We can have reasonable disagreements as to whether images should be allowed at all and, if so, whether they should be allowed on all fora or not and I don't think one can reasonably dismiss the opinion of others on this as "ridiculous" or "absurd".

I personally feel uncomfortable with images. I have seen too many sites with an excess of garish images that make the sight look amateurish and kindergarten-like (although, to be fair, the same effect results from excessive use of fonts and colours).

IMO, it is not an answer to say "but you can turn it off" as the contents of posts changes when photos are allowed and it becomes difficult to follow threads without turning images on. But it looks like I am in a minority on this and am resigned to the advent of images. I would hope that images, though, would be policed more tightly than text. I do not cherish the prospect of being subjected to pictures of the incredible hulk or some such when a poster seeks to express that they are angry.
it seems to me that stricter guidelines should be considered if images are allowed across the board.

Yes, I know where the TOS can be found -- but I can not see the specific provision allowing a mod to decide which functions may be used on his forum. Please quote that one.

I think I just did.

But given NickB's excellent post above, perhaps his comments are more pertinent to the debate than a really techy discussion about the meaning of 'content'?

No, you didn't.

If you are talking about this:

It makes no mention of moderators being able to restrict people from using a tool of the board that is explicitly "turned on" by the TalkBoard. It merely allows moderators to determine if items posted violate the rule. This paragraph does not (in either the letter or the spirit) give moderators carte blanche to turn off board features.

You can't fit a size 10 foot into a size 5 shoe.

Also, if moderators don't wish to deal with images, I'm sure there's a pile of volunteer applications from people who would be willing to moderate those forums.

No, that's like if I asked "What section of the law makes it illegal to import sardines?" and you replied, "The law."

The TOS exists to make it crystal clear to members what is and what is not permitted (and by "members" I am including moderators).

The current incarnation of the TOS dates back to before you were a moderator. It was drafted by several mods at the first Mod Do in Las Vegas and presented to TalkBoard by Randy for approval.

The mods who wrote it could have saved themselves a lot of trouble if the TOS was meant to prohibit whatever a particular mod didn't like and to permit whatever he did. In fact, they could have written the entire thing in one sentence.

I was a TalkBoard member when Randy presented it to us for a vote and I would never have voted in favor of it if the mods had taken that approach. I can't speak for all the other TB members at the time, but I tend to doubt that most of them would have approved it either.

Well, the way I see it the TB had two options here: let images loose on FT and if there are problems react to them in a measured way,

or

attempt to micromanage the rollout of photos, creating standards, criteria and rewriting the TOS with images in mind.


From my perspective, I took a look at the beta test forums and read the reactions of the moderators of those forums. In all of those instances the moderators reported that folks used the image feature responsibly and productively in compliance with the TOS without much additional moderator burden at all. The only exception to this was in community where problems apparently did occur, but the mods were able to lay down the law through 'regular' moderator intervention and since then it hasn't been a problem.*

So I think it's fair to extrapolate from the beta test that a full-FT rollout of images is appropriate and wont cause moderators too much additional work.

But I am also open to the notion that some posters and perhaps some entire forums will abuse images. If that happens, this proposal allows moderators, senior moderators and management to take appropriate action, whatever that may be. And, as always this is just a recommendation. Not a law.

Personally, though, I'm not one for assuming the worst in people until they give me reason to.

So my position is: allow still images in all forums. Hopefully things will go as well and smoothly as they did in the beta tests.

If not, deal with those problems as they arise either through RBPs or, if things get out of hand, through management intervention.

That's my view, anyway.



*this is a corrected version of events as explained by a community moderator.

I personally believe that most of our members will play nicely... they know the consequences if they do not. Will something occasionally get through? Of course. I know that I would rather deal with the exceptions than restrict a feature that enhances the Flyertalk experience. Yes, I do believe images do that.

I have no real feelings about the images one way or the other but I do agree with wharvey that if FT permits them they should be handled exactly like posts or any other feature -- that the content decides whether a particular one is a TOS violation, but that the feature itself should not be banned.

So, presumably, you also think that all fora should have thread prefixes or no fora should have them? If so, can I ask why, given that they make or less sense and more or less useful in various fora?

I have not yet read a single positive argument as to why, as a matter of principle, all fora should be exactly the same.

Not to speak for Dov, and not to start an against-the-TOS discussion of moderation, but my feeling is that every forum need not be exactly the same. But I do believe that moderators and moderation should be as consistent as possible.

Even so, I do trust moderators enough to give them broad latitude to enforce the TOS as it relates to images as they see fit.

I feel comfortable doing this because I trust that FTers will not abuse the use of images so much as to require strict standards of use. Call it my Libertarian streak. But if some do go off the TOS reservation, as I was just geeking out to someone else, the regional governors now have direct control over their territories. Fear will keep the local systems in line. Fear of this battle station. :D

By default the option is "on" today for guests. I do not know what the option is for new accounts.
I agree with all of these. Sadly, however, I do not believe that #1 is possible with the way the technology is set up. Because the images are pulled from other systems, not the FT servers, the FT system doesn't know anything about the sizes of the images. We've had images enabled in the Travel Photography forum forever (for obvious reasons) and have occasionally had issues with people posting pics that are too large. I have yet to receive any resistance when I've communicated with a user that their oversize image should be reduced to a smaller size. And should I encounter such push back I know that I can always just delete the offending image.
Correct. Along with Travel Photography, Trip Reports has had this functionality for a while.

People will have fun and play with it when it is first released because that is what human nature is. After that brief introductory period, people will generally post useful and pertinent photos. If they don't they will face moderator action and a general shunning from the community. Strangely that seems to work around here. ;)

I am strongly in favor of this useful growth of FlyerTalk, both as a moderator and as a user.

Right - It wouldn't have to be a technological limitation if vBulletin isn't capable of it, just a policy that nothing exceeds 300x600 or whatever so that the rendering of the page isn't screwed up. Not that it really matters to me since I don't see ads in my upgraded FT, but correctly rendering the pages thusly would keep advertisers happier in addition to keeping the pages more readable, I would think.

peace,
~Ben~

I'm not even so much concerned with long term FTers abusing the posting of images but more for "newbies". GLBT gets a fair number of new posters to Flyertalk (as well as those that rarely post anywhere else). Yes, we have the TOS, but how many FTers (not including those that post here) have even read the TOS.

The "explicit" links that we often have to edit out are rarely posted maliciously or even intentionally since the "explicit" pictures may not be on the page that the link points to. SPAM type posters are also getting more clever - a couple of months ago one posted the link in the signature section - which I had to ask SanDiego1K to remove and I think she has PTSD over it because she clicked to see it rather than just take my word for it :D

And the issue of what is acceptable covers a very wide area - some examples I can think of - 2 Men walking down the street holding hands - 2 Men kissing - Shirtless Man in Jeans - Shirtless Man in Underwear/Jockstrap - Man in a butt-less chap walking down the street. These are just some examples of where most people would disagree on what's accceptable - anything "milder" I'm sure is acceptable - anything more "explicit" is obviously not. As can be seen, there is a huge area which is "debatable".

As much time as I volunteer on Flyertalk, I'm not willing to shoulder this responsibility especially since some very explicit images could be posted and not moderated to be removed for hours. Sure, they can be posted anywhere on Flyertalk that allows images, but it would be totally out of context. And people who "watch" the GLBT forum for transgressions (including some that have posted in this thread) will be screaming why the image wasn't removed within minutes of a RBP (report bad picture - in this case). And do we really want an "explicit" picture to be displayed for all to see in the meantime? At least with links, there must at least be an act involved before you can see the page.

I'm totally in favor of allowing images in the "core" forums (airlines, hotels, rental cars - where I moderate two forums) but the "other" forums need to be evaluated on a case by case (and obviously I'm totally against having the feature in GLBT).

And Flyertalkers in general are very smart and very good at finding "creative" usage of features.

Someone with a hardcore forum tech bent may know the answer to this question:

1. Is vBulletin equipped with a feature to allow certain posts (e.g. in this case a post with embedded image in GLBT Forum) to be posted with the image hidden to not-logged-in readers, but visible to logged-in readers? or
2. Could vBulletin be set up to allows posts in GLBTF with images be posted, but with the image hidden until approved by a forum volunteer?

[Apologies for veering slightly OT - I'm looking for common ground to allow unqnimous approval of the motion - if there are solutions to current objections]

I ask in case anyone reading has experience with image management on other forums (including your HOM team or IB staff), who may be able to comment on whether there is a functional solution through software that allows this forum to have images posted, subject to prior review.