saacman5033

The phrase in question is still defamation as written especially when presented flatly as being factual.

It's quite possible to present a negative opinion of a blog by presenting factual information and stating your opinion on such without using broad generalizations, defamation, etc.

The point is not to eliminate negative aspects of the topic. It's that we need to do so in a thoughtful, respectful way. While it may be quicker and easier to drop one-liners, make broad generalizations, or speculate on the motive of bloggers, we need to step up our game and make well presented arguments supporting our opinions on the topic whether positive or negative. And I do mean we as I am guilty of a thoughtless one-liner or two in the past towards bloggers I haven't agreed with.

dayone

The most useful blogs are those written for the reader rather than about the blogger.

LufthansaFlyer

Well said.....

yerffej201

Easier said than done though... for example lucky's super long post on his valuation of points.

Either he's writing the post because he wants readers to learn, sticking a bunch of links in there, or on the flip side he needs his clicks on his links for cash from flexoffers, so he finds a topic where he can stick large amounts of links in.

That would be true if in reality blogs were much more simple.

Waektra

i follow you

+1 ^_^

belfordrocks

Because there's no need to - there's a thread right here on FlyerTalk.

And if certain readers don't like what they are reading they can either-

- Discuss the argument using facts
- Not read the thread

Simple, isn't it?

Often it appears that a blog is written for the reader, especially from a newbie perspective, but on closer examination turns out to be the reverse.

sbm12

So then prefacing it with "I believe" makes it my opinion and therefore kosher, right?

And since when is commenting on the perceived tone of content published in another venue either defamation or subject to the ToS rules here?

The sudden and significant change of moderation policy as it applies to this thread (and this whole forum?? and FT in general???) is most unfortunate.

Mountain Trader

I remember when prohibitions on arguing (much less quibbling) over moderator actions in posts on FT was an enforced term of service.

Did this change? When? Why?

ma91pmh

There is very little discussion going on here. There is mostly just a group of people who no matter what is said, post spiteful and hateful comments.

There is a much smaller subset of people actually engaging in meaningful discussion.

belfordrocks

I don't know about you, but answering a reader question of "is it okay to skip the return segment of a return ticket" with another spiel about Chase cards justifies the response it is currently receiving.

84fiero

^And why is the policy seeming to only be in place here? i.e., browse the UA, DL, AA, etc forums... things like "United hates Silver Premiers" for just one mild example among many, many comments along the same lines. I honestly don't understand the distinction.

sbm12

That, too, has never been an absolute. There are plenty of threads where it is invited or encouraged.

kokonutz

Well here is your opportunity to make it clear that it is ok to talk about the blogs themselves as well as the blog posts:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/talkb...ogs-forum.html

If you feel strongly about this issue then I strongly encourage you to post your thoughts there (not just 'yes' or 'no,' but actual arguments in favor or against) because there are at least 2 or 3 TalkBoard members who are firmly on the fence on this motion, and are waiting to see what the FlyerTalk posters have to say about it.

Mountain Trader

There are examples of everything in the lengthy history of FT, but the overwhelming practice as recently as a few years ago was that any mention of moderator judgement was forbidden and repeat offenders were suspended.

At the time I found this limited discussion but applied to this thread, it would seem a welcome return to reasoned dialogue.

dayone

It's pretty clear which he is doing, IMHO.