Moved by kokonutz and seconded by Spiff

that images be allowed in all Miles and Points forums, Travel&Dining forums, Technical Services forums as well as all Community forums except the Special Interest travel forums.

and further that the TOS be amended to include the following language:

FlyerTalk allows posters with 20 posts or more to embed non-animated images in certain forums. All images must meet community standards, must convey relevant on-topic information and are allowed only in posts and not in signature lines. Images should be as small as needed to get the point across without being overbearing. Images that are offensive, irrelevant or violate the TOS will be removed by moderators and posters of such images may be subject to disciplinary action including, but not limited to, loss of image-posting privileges in one or more forums. Posters are responsible for the content of images embedded in their posts whether it is the image intended to be and/or originally posted or not. The FlyerTalk administrator may eliminate the ability to embed images in particular forums as a result of repeated violations by multiple posters in that forum.

This vote will close on Mar 13, 09 at 4:46 pm or after all TalkBoard members have registered their vote, whichever comes first.

Per the TalkBoard Guidelines:
The purpose of posting voting topics in the public TalkBoard Topics forum is to solicit member feedback on any motions that are up for a vote and to allow for comments after a vote is made. It is at the sole discretion of the individual TalkBoard members whether they choose to post in the public discussion thread, there being no requirement to do so.

So while there is already a thread (or two...or three ) and discussion on this general topic and a 4-forum beta test of the concept of allowing images on FT forums, and it is safe to assume that TalkBoard members have reviewed those threads, this thread is about this specific motion. Please feel free to post questions, comments or any other sort of feedback.

Speaking only for myself now, this motion is the result of the input received during the last proposal to expand the use of images as well as further consultation with the moderators.

It allows static images in all forums except the special interest travels and the OMNIs, and the recommendation to Randy is that images be turned on in those forums unless/until he deems there is a need to turn them off.

Meantime, moderators are tasked with keeping the images in line with the TOS including the new TOS language included in the motion.

Hopefully it addresses all the concerns raised by everyone and soon posters will be able to use embedded images in most FT forums, thereby improving the user experience! ^

i appreciate the work which has gone in on this from many people ^

Thanks for persevering to find common grounds, team. The Starwood forum has been enhanced by use of images. I feel that other forums will be as well.

That's a fact! This proposal is the result of the efforts of many, many folks taking the time and effort to examine this issue from all perspectives. ^

From my perspective, special shout outs to Cholula, bhatnasx, Spiff and all the moderators from the beta test forums!

OPPOSED

FlyerTalk won't host our images because they would cost about $0.0000065 per image in hard drive storage space.

If FlyerTalk had to host 1,500 images it would cost them a penny.

So put the burden on each and every FlyerTalk poster to arrange their own way to host images in perpetuity or the links will break. You'll have threads devoted to pictures that don't exist anymore. And then people asking "where's the picture?" all the time. Maybe it works in the photography forum because people there take their images more seriously. In other forums people won't host in perpetuity.

Blah.

Thanks, but no thanks. <--- static image

.

Until IB can actually get the stability problems fixed for more than a few hours at a time, I'm opposed. It will just add more overhead, complexity, and stuff to go wrong.

I would be against this motion. Why are the posters who frequent the "Special Interest Forums" being discriminated against in this motion? They are the same people who visit other forums... if they can be trusted (or expected to follow the TOS in other forums) why should the same expectation not be held in the Special Interest Forums? I could imagine where pictures could be valuable to enhance an experience in Travel with Pets or Religious Travelers or even GLBT travel.

I also do not favor any motion that encourages post padding... I can only imagine the first 20 posts of some members who want to post images.

Thanks for giving this a second airing. I like the revised proposal; the proposed amendment to the TOS is succinct, clear and carries the spirit of FT. I am very much in favour of this. ^

As small as needed? What exactly does that mean?

The images should be small enough to ensure the point is made, but don't make them so small that the smallness becomes overbearing?

I would say,

Images may be as big as needed to get the point across without being overbearing.


or, even simpler,

Images should be no bigger than needed to get the point across.

period.

.

While I tend to agree with you, WH, sometimes perfect is the enemy of good enough. There were some concerns expressed about rolling out to ALL forums, and much talk about limiting the images to 'core' forums 'for now.'

This is a compromise.

And I do hope that everyone gets comfortable with the feature and it is used productively such that a full FT-wide implementation eventually happens.

Bobster: I actually wanted to create a specific maximum size, but the moderators asked for more wiggle room (I guess they didn't want to have to get their rulers out every time someone embedded an image ). Thus the language you see: encouraging small but allowing big up to the discretion of the forum moderator as to what he or she considers to be 'overbearing.'

I'd just like to add my support for allowing static images. I think that, for a travel board like FT, one picture truly is worth a thousand words. I think off-site hosting of the photos is a non-issue. There are many free sites available for this purpose if a poster doesn't want to use his own resources for hosting photos (I do -- it's easy).

Thanks for bringing this issue up again! Let's hope it passes. ^

A couple of questions to the OPs:

Technology - Is it possible to only permit user with 20 posts to post or will Moderators be required to check this?

Technology - Is it possible to resind people image posting power, but not their ordinary posting power if they breach the TOS in terms of image posting. If not are the Mods to police this.

Not the OP, but I know the answer to #1: Yes. (answered in the previous motion's thread)

I can support this - thanks for the hard work