Proposition # 666 Budman and Kal for Hall Monitors ((B)) ((D)) **==

((N))

Marilyn--I assume the worst because I think about who would volunteer to be a monitor. Although I would like to think it would be someone like Ben--I doubt it. My assumption is that it would be someone with to much time on their hands, who likes the idea of monitoring others. Did you ever meet a hall monitor that you liked?

In response to popular demand, and I thank all of you who have been kind enough to put forth my candidacy, I respond with

>hdm
Date: 11/09/2005, 12:57 pm
I take it that a 'monitor' (which is the word PK used) is not the same as a 'moderator'. Can I assume that a monitor is someone who is assigned a slate of boards to read and who would then report any questionable posts to the Fodor's editor? It would then be the editor's job to decide whether they should be deleted, posters banned, etc.

If that's the case, sure, why not? I wouldn't expect one person from Fodor's to be able to keep on top of all posts and deleted the questionable ones in a timely manner.<

with which I agree.

OTOH, some of us do that already. :)

((I))

Well, Ira, then I said I would want more information about these editorial 'powers' that would be given to this person.

To other comments above, I don't know if the monitor would have the wherewithal to delete posts or threads or would just keep an eye on them and advise someone at Fodor's of questionable ones.

Like milliondollarbbw, I try to read only what interests me but we all know that sometimes threads go off track and get mean. I can't say I've never participated in that -- it's easy to get caught up in it -- but I'm always sorry to see an otherwise interesting, intelligent thread go awry.

With all due respect to Ira's prowess as a travel expert, and of course not omitting all the other real experts on this forum, I believe the idea would lead to some improper actions by whoever the person might be -- Ira included.

And don't ask what I consider improper, because I don't know till I see it. That's the problem; none of us has the same view of good or bad, yet almost all of us know when a post is really objectionable.

I think letting each participant in this forum remain as his own censor is the best way to do it. And let's just hope that all of us can restrain ourselves from assuming the authoritarian role of Fodor's god of posts.

Hi hd,

I agree with what you surmised, "...someone who is assigned a slate of boards to read and who would then report any questionable posts to the Fodor's editor..<.

I have no interest in assuming a position as a Fodor's editor without being employed by Fodor's.

((I))

There isn't really any way a monitor can be "trained" because by definition a monitor would be doing things that would be subjective evaluations. If Fodors could train monitors, they would have trained the person(s) they allow now to edit and delete posts and ban posters. They haven't, and the standards are not consistent or even logical at times. I don't know if they have more than one person doing it and that's the reason, or what. I just know they can't train their own staff to do it, so any result would be arbitrary.

The very word "administative powers" suggests someone would be able to delete posts and ban posters. That is what the AOL "community monitors" were able to do, with no oversight or responsbility to AOL. They had a real nut on the France board about five years ago who insulted everybody herself right and left, but constantly told other people they weren't allowed to say things or disagree with her, didn't know hardly anything about France (she had no business being a France board monitor), played favorites, etc. that's when I left AOL. She would threaten to get people banned if they disagreed with her, for example.

As someone said, I can't think of any reason someone would volunteer to do that work for Fodors for free except wanting the power.

I still feel that this has something to do with the "Wizard of Oz" experience. What is all that blustering I hear from the voice outside?

I would trust the legitimacy of the question of the need for more moderaters if this arose from steady, dedicated Fodorites, who saw the need.

Clear as mud? C:)

"Monitor" sounds like someone who just reads over threads and watches for abuse and alerts the Fodors Editors. Don't know what sort of extensive training would be needed. Might work, but since presumeably the FE(s) already get lots of e-mail from concerned posters and can't keep up w/ the problem children, I don't see how monitors would help much.

"Moderator" sounds like someone w/ technical knowledge/permission to edit/remove threads and delete the bad guys. This is a MUCH bigger problem. Some of the people on here who have the technical skills/inclination to want this job - are the LAST people I'd want to have the power.

I belong to one successful forum with multiple moderators - and it works because one is the founder and the others have been around since the begining and have the confidence of most everyone else. But there are only about 400 registered members - not the thousands on here.

Monitors <i>might</i> work but I'm not convinced. Moderators - no way.

&quot;Steady, dedicated Fodorites who see the need?&quot; I realize that Fodors has developed an elite group whose pronouncements are sancrosanct, but are all travelers who do not use perfect English, correct punctuation and God forbid, occasionally mispell a word, to be excluded entirely? I had the apparently erroneous opinion that this was a forum where it was possible to drop in, on occasion, ask a travel related question hoping for a civil answer without benefit of the hall and bus monitors we left behind in grade school.

Good grief, with my poor typing skills and lack of proofreading if members were eliminated from Fodor's for not posting &quot;absolutely correct&quot; post I would be the first one removed, LOL.

Peter, your question reminds me of the old saying &quot;if it isn't broken don't fix it&quot;. I, will all due respect, think you are trying to hard.

Fodor's works!! Or as some kids would say Fodor's rocks! Until you have a majority of Fodorites complaining about the format of the threads and post I suggest you just leave well enough alone.

I would suspect that most of us are mature enough to deal with the occassional &quot;troll&quot;. And we have the knowledge that we can email Fodor's if some &quot;troll&quot; goes way over the acceptable line. That is my thoughts for what they are worth. Best regards.

TravelsWith - My point was that I don't trust an outsider with investments in this site that I can't identify with, coming up with this type of suggestion that has little to do with what we all doo here.

LoveItaly - Which is what I think, too. I have said some perfectly imperfect and inappropriate things in threads that I wouldn't mind taking back, but I'll get over it. I have read things that others have said that I can take whatever way I choose. If I choose offence, I'll still have to get over it. Sometimes I even agree with Rex, sometimes not.

Ira, WITH BENEFITS!

Fodor's rocks!!

(now I want a compliment of being young)

Ira, we'll even call you Grand Poobah, and I bet Fodor's would provide you with a funny hat.

:)

Jules

Well, Ira gets the &quot;nod&quot;. (: I don't think there should be a heavy hand with the monitering, just enough to keep the &quot;lid&quot; on. I too was on AOL for a number of years and left for several reasons, one being that the message boards were allowed to REALLY get out of hand. I don't know if it's different now, but when I left, anyone could go in and actually take over the board, could actually change the heading on subject thread titles, and things like that. There were some trolls from hell on there with foul language, threats, racial and cultural slurs...sometimes it was just horrible, plus they could e-mail you..thank goodness for the deleat button. There was a way to block posters and I did block a few but then it would make it difficult to follow certain threads, so it was a big mess. So, I was glad to see that Fodor's kept an eye on things so they didn't get to the point they reached on AOL, but I really don't think we need a &quot;baby sitter&quot;. And, yes, you do often need a thick skin in cyber space.

I don't think it's such a bad idea, My favorite board, the Gonzaga U men's hoops forum (http://mb19.scout.com/fzaghoopsfrm1), employs a system of a forum administrator and a handful of &quot;moderators.&quot; I'm not sure how they operate, but I do know that, whereas other hoops forums I've visited have been the print equivalent of cockfighting rings, with profanity, insults, illiteracy, and generally low-class behavior, the GU forum is generally well-behaved, informative, funny, and lively, with little bellyaching about how the forum is administered.

Fodors' posters are generally well-behaved. However, some of us violate the rules from time to time, and when we do, we shouldn't be surprised to find our post deleted.

I don't hear any positive suggestions offered on this thread as alternatives for the present system, which calls on Fodors employees to babysit us. This site is, after all, part of a for-profit enterprise. I consider it a blessing and a generous gift by Fodors, and it seems to me there's a whole lot of biting the hand that feeds us that goes on here.

I think LoveItaly nailed it in the last three paragraphs of her post above. This board has a certain personality that would have a high likelihood of being destroyed with the advent of &quot;forum monitors.&quot; Not to say the board is perfect, but I think it would be risky to dismantle the entire format.

Let sleeping dogs lie.