kokonutz

Never say in 'private' anything you dont want to see on the front page of the Washington Post.

To wit:

Hey, El Presidente, while I certainly appreicate your obvious concern for my and other Flyertalkers' well being, if you've got somthing to say about me, why dont you say it to my face instead of in your smoky cloakroom?




[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 03-13-2002).]

kokonutz

Ok, one more for the fans. Don't ever make the mistake of believing your own PR. Or, as Frank said in Scarface: Rule number two: don't get high on your own supply.


Correction: Sorry...this should be attributed to Dhammer, not Cigarman. Kokonutz regrets the error.

[This message has been edited by kokonutz (edited 03-13-2002).]

Rudi

Good always wins out over evil ....eventually.

that was/is an easy prediction, I agree. The now serving TalkBoard is due to new elections in about half a year ...

[This message has been edited by Rudi (edited 03-13-2002).]

svpii

How fascinating. So if I speculate correctly, the topic is moderator selections and the standards for being a moderator on FT require, at a minimum:

1. Impeccable behavior at FT functions
2. A breathalyzer - what is the ETOH limit I wonder? Would this be based on highest documented blood alcohol level, or average # of drinks per day/week?
3. An undefined minimum age
4. Being Most Level Headed
5. Not having distractions like going to school - one would then assume having a job is similarly distracting?
6. Being a member of the new "Click"

Are there other 'requirements'?? And here I thought it was just a matter of being able to interpret and fairly administer the TOS. Silly me. But then I guess I only knowingly meet a couple of the requirements (those being that I am both old and unemployed), so what would I know?

[This message has been edited by svpii (edited 03-13-2002).]

hfly

Koko,

As you have obviously been able to hack into the TB, or were given access or clips from someone else, I believe that it is only fair that I make a unilateral decision and post another part of the EXACT same thread. Out of context comments or incomplete postings are highly misleading.

I apologize to my fellow TB members, but felt that I had to post this to nip it in the bud.

cigarman

Posts: 1955
From: Smoke filled room, CLT, LAX :CO PLAT,DL rookie (comp status),starwd PLAT,hilton diamond,hyatt diamond
Registered: May 2000
posted 03-01-2002 09:09 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps, Im confusing Koko with another FT'er. If so my apologies. But that is the purpose of discussion. Sort of like discussing job interviews after the people leave. That's why confidential comments are good.
Oh, and if the criteria is never having been in a flame war... guess old cigar better not look to moderate EH?

JeffS

I'm thinking Premex's thoughts on why a Talkboard make more sense to me everyday.

ClueByFour

I'm not really impressed with the followup snippet, either.

Yeah, I recognize the need for somebody (in this case, the TB) to decide who moderates what. I can even respect the fact that such a discussion really ought to take place in private.

That having been said, I'd suggest that behavior at FT events and/or progress thru higher education has nothing to do with, nor is it really the business of the TB to consider, selecting or approving moderators. (for the long version of my thoughts, see what svpii posted above). Quite candidly if this is indicative of the type of dicussion that is being fostered by the "privacy" of the TB forum, then it's much more enronesque that condusive to responsible decisionmaking.

But that's just my $0.02. That I did not spend on beer. For Koko. At the last FT event http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/smile.gif.



------------------
Saving the world, one clue at a time.

squeakr

is anybody but me upset that the PRIVATE dealings of the board were posted/ Now I have no great love for Cigarman, and I have much affection for koko, but I believe that even cigarman is entitled to his opinion about moderators and what their fitness might be. There are other TB members yes? Who know the personalities involved, yes? And we did elect some of them , and the rest appointed by Randy? I for one am more upset that the private deliberations were posted - especially since I have asked to be considered as a moderator, and I would not REALLY want to know in open forum why I was or wasn't chosen...

Although I empathize with Koko's situation, I am undecided if off-line behavior should be considered...THIS is not about Koko, AT ALL - BUT - for ex. if there was someone f who was always blabbing about other members' personal issues at FT events, I might weigh that kindof behavor into my decisions about what role they took on FT.


edited for spelling




[This message has been edited by squeakr (edited 03-13-2002).]

techgirl

And once again, a very wise post from Pam who I grow to respect more and more every week.

Let's see... I would be ineligible to be a moderator because I don't meet the following standards...

1. Impeccable? Hmmm... I'm polite and I send thank you notes. I think the few (published) trip reports from my FT gatherings, however, would render me less than pristine.

2. Breathalyzer? Nah, I'd fail that too. Frankly, I can take both FT and FT events and for that matter just plain flying much better after one or two (or ten) drinks. Which reminds me of the really cool "fool the breathalyzer" trick a great DUI defense attorney taught me that works....

3. Undefinied minimum age. Well, as I learned in my EEOC training class you can discriminate against any of us who are less than 40. Probably wise, too... I think that the most level folks on FT have exceeded that limit.

4. And speaking of level-headed, I've been accused of being a ditz by lots of folks who haven't met me. Enough said.

5. Distractions... let's see. Isn't FT supposed to be a distraction? Or a diversion? That's how I see it anyhow.

6. Clicks? We have cliques around here? And I haven't been invited to join one? Oh my... I suddenly feel so very unpopular, so very unloved. (Oh my... what ARE the popular kids saying about me behind my back.) Oh well... as Groucho Marx said... I wouldn't want to be a member of any club that would have me as a member...

I'm very much not liking the concept of the TalkBoard or these private forums anymore. It seems so very junior high to me. I may not meet minimum behavior and age "standards", but I do know I outgrew this **** a long time ago.

I'm voting for full disclosure... keep it coming.

squeakr

Again, not speaking for or about Koko but I think someone's of fline behavior can be an issue that woul dbe relevant to assigning them responsibilities on FT.

[QUOTE]
5. Distractions... let's see. Isn't FT supposed to be a distraction? Or a diversion? That's how I see it anyhow. /QUOTE]

to be honest, cigarman is NOT the only FT'er who has worried (and maybe his isn't worry but....) that mark may be workingon FT issues to his detriment in terms of his other life responsibilites. AGAIN I don't have a FIRSTHAND nowledge as I don't know the players involved well enough but the others who have expressed some concerns seem to be genuine in their respsonse.




[This message has been edited by squeakr (edited 03-13-2002).]

islandcub

Like most people in FT, I am not on the Talk Board, and I don't have access to the Talk Board only Board (boy, how's that for an awkward phrase?). So, my comments are based on what was posted here, which authenticity and accuracy I have no way of verifying.

I accept that the excerpts kokonutz posted are out of context and therefore open to misinterpretation and spin-doctoring. I also accept that Talk Board discussions may have to be held in camera; that is, as closed meetings, especially when you are discussing individuals. I accept that because of this, the Talk Board may never be able to provide all the information, since the only way to guarantee 100% of the context is to breach privacy. And I accept that somebody appears to breached an agreement to keep some things in closed session.

Nevertheless, valid issues are raised by this thread:

1. Are people's non-FT lives being discussed at all at the Talk Board? If so, has anybody demonstrated that how people behave in in-person social situations, decisions regarding alcohol, age, or occupation (excepting possibly working in the travel industry) is relevant to a discussion about their participation - at any level - in FT? I sincerely hope that if the first quoted post by cigarman was in fact posted, the first follow up said "Why are you mentioning this?"

2. Is anybody on the Talk Board actually voicing an us against them opinion regarding any of the members they were elected to represent? Having served in an elected capacity in various volunteer organizations, I fully understand that individuals can be annoying, but elected officials are supposed to work in the best interests of their constituency, or of the entire body. This may include sometimes setting aside the wishes of the majority in favour of the needs of the majority, and it may mean that the Board may divide based on individual perceptions of those needs, but it should never set the Board above that body. Making references to "good" and "evil" in this context is not helpful.

3. The genie is out of the bottle. I wish none of this had ever seen the light of day, and I hope that we are mistaken and that none of this ever happened within the Talk Board, either, but hfly's post indicates that kokonutz hasn't made anything up, and we all now labour under the suspicion that the Talk Board may have been discussing our personal lives during official business.

I therefore respectfully request that the Talk Board provide an explanation of why these discussions occurred and were apparently permitted to continue (judging from what hfly provided), without naming the individuals who were the topic of discussion. I also request that the Talk Board contact each person whose personal lives were discussed and provide them with an unedited copy of the part of the thread that discussed them. Furthermore, I request that those members of the TalkBoard who made such comments apologize in general to FT, and in private to each individual whose privacy was invaded. Finally, to protect individuals' privacy from further invasion, I ask that both kokonutz and hfly immediately edit their posts to remove the names of the people who were being discussed in the quotes (kokonutz may, of course, choose to leave his own name in if he so choosed), and that after my earlier questions and requests have been addressed to the general satisfaction of the members concerned, the Talk Board threads themselves be deleted, so that nobody else will ever see them.

islandcub

squeakr

AGREED - excellent summing up of my feelings also.

Comicwoman

I second the motion. All non Board members, your votes please.

kokonutz

Isalndclub: good point. I shouldn't have brought my Delawarian friend into this.

Hey, do you think we can get the GAO to sue to open up the Talk Board discussions to some sunshine?

http://ens.lycos.com/ens/jan2002/2002L-01-31-06.html

IMHO, sunshine is a good thing. It makes us act more responsibly.

BTW, for the record, I never asked to be a moderator and would (politely http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/biggrin.gif) decline the responsibility if asked...which seems rather unlikely at this point anyway...

kokonutz

I'm not a lawyer, but I play one at work:

What's Libel?

The word libel is probably less well-known than its cousins, slander and defamation. They're related, but there are differences. Libel is written and slander is usually oral. In both cases, if it's unfairly critical of someone, it's defamation.

Another key difference between libel and slander, however, is that it's easier to get dragged into a libel suit, and harder to get out unscathed. In a libel case, the burden of proof falls more on the defendant — that is you, the author. The simple act of publication tends to bias courts against the author, presuming the material is false, malicious, and potentially damaging.

Three Elements of Libel

A libel case requires three elements: Publication, identification, and defamation.

Publication: Here's the deal. If you wrote it, and someone else read it, it's published. This includes password-protected journals and entries, and "secret" entries sent only by e-mail. One reader is all it takes, even if it's your best friend, your mother, or a complete stranger.

Clearly, then, it is pointless to demand that people you know steer clear of your writing. Or to insist that your site is just for you, a "private space." Much as we might romanticise the web, its use brings both untold power and serious responsibilies. If your words leave your computer, it's published. You're a publisher. Deal with it.

Identification: If the person being libeled can be identified — or can identify him or herself in your writing — it's strike two.

People who post under their real names, and talk about and name the people around them, obviously meet this criteria automatically. But watch out. Some things web users to do to protect themselves are laughably ineffective.

Using nicknames for your friends and family, for example, usually accomplishes nothing in the legal department. Why? Because even qualifiers like "my boss" or "my stupid b*tch neighbor" can convert "Farthead" to "Jason Q. Private" under libel law. So too can separate entries taken together. If "Weenie" is described as a coworker in one entry (a category that could otherwise include hundreds of people), as a Jesus freak in another, and as the owner of a butt-ugly green Honda in a third? Congratulations. You might as well put her picture up too.

Posting under a pseudonym? Once again, you may giving yourself a false sense of security. So you don't give your name, or specify the city where you live, or even your gender. Maybe you also assign the people around you one-letter nicknames. Are you covered?

Most likely not. As in the above example, not only can you "out" yourself over time — very likely, unless you don't mention anything about any person or place, ever — once again the "one person" rule applies. If anyone can figure out who you, or they, are from your writing, that's all it takes.

And remember, once legal action is taken, your identity can be established through everything from e-mail accounts to IP logs (ISPs and web hosts won't hesitate to turn over logs when faced with an expensive lawsuit).

Defamation: Textbooks often define it as "a false statement to a person's discredit." Certainly wrongly accusing someone of a criminal act (i.e. saying your mechanic beats his wife) qualifies. Saying something that directly attacks someone's professional standing often does as well (i.e. that your doctor is incompetent). Even just calling a roommate a drunnk or a sl*t, or a teacher an a*shole, might sound to some sufficiently defamatory.

There are loopholes, exceptions, even some protections (see below). After all, your accuser must prove injury, and quantify the damage done. But if it's come to the point of legal action, things have probably already gone too far. After all, the case might stand a snowball's chance in hell in court, but the fact that you've been sued at all is trouble enough. A pending lawsuit can force you off the internet altogether.

Defenses Against Libel

Truth: The granddaddy of escape clauses is truth. If what you say is provably true, then the plaintiff supposedly has no case. But even this can get messy. Is the truth something still being debated? (That is, was your ex actually convicted of DUI, or is the matter still pending?) And, is the truth actually information that should have remained private? (For example, your friend's confessed addiction to internet p*rn.) Finally, there's malice. You might state the truth and nothing else, but if the context makes it clear you're doing so to hurt that person... Bzzt. Just knowing you're right may not be enough.