As this is not directly connected to any of the issues being discussed right now, but is a very important question that needs to be answered. I decided to make it a separate thread.

A flame will be removed by the mods. Repeated flaming will result in banning the poster. So it is important to know just what a flame is.

Is it something which the poster meant with bad intent? Is it something which the recipient considers an insult? Is it something which the moderator sees as being negative?

If you call me a "Communist", I will consider myself flamed. My girlfriend, a member of the Italian Communist Party, would not.

Indeed, years ago the courts decided that it is not libelous to call someone a communist, even if he is not. That decision was the result, in part, of an amicus curiae brief submitted by the American Communist Pary. They held that if it is libelous to call someone a communist, then the courts are saying that being a communist is bad.

Today, an OMNI post was edited by the mods because a poster had referred to IJK (another poster) as "Islamic Jihad Kid".

I would be furious if someone were to imply that I support Islamic Jihad. I do not know how IJK feels about this. He has consistently taken a pro-Arab position on every Israeli-Arab thread. I don't recall him ever condemning Arab terrorism. It is possible that he would not see being identified with Islamic Jihad as an insult.

Purely for the sake of argument, let us assume that IJK does not see it as insulting. The poster obviously meant it as an insult -- so is that enough to make it a flame? If IJK is proud of this identification, is it still a flame?

Conversely, let's assume that a self-proclaimed Nazi were to misread some post that I made and feel that I am a kindred soul. He then calls me a "Nazi" -- which he feels is a high compliment. He had no intention at all of flaming me, but I am disgusted at the very thought of it. Have I been flamed?

In a third hypothetical situation, John calls Bill a homosexual. The moderator feels this is insulting and removes it. John and Bill, however, are both homosexuals and neither one sees anything wrong with it. Is it a flame simply because the moderator sees it as one?



[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Dovster, you know your above argument has some grain of intellectual partisanship and is not transparently honest in this situation. I say this because your comments starting this thread are actually connected to many of the issues being discussed here right now. But now onto this matter:

Knowingly calling someone a terrorist when they are not is a lie.

Knowingly calling someone a nazi when they are not is a lie.

Knowingly calling someone a homosexual when they are not is a lie.

When one is knowingly trying to pin a label that they know to be more likely a lie than the truth, and when it is not done in jest, then it is a "flame". You can play creatively with denotative meanings of a word, but when you play creatively with connotative meanings of a label such that said label may wrongfully ruin someone's reputation on unsubstantiated bases, that is a "flame".

I stand by the moderators in the case of ap2110's attack on IJK. If IJK does not see at as an attack, then well and good; but it's still a personal attack in my book; and its an attack meant to inhibit debate -- and that's why I truly stand with the moderators on this one.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Agreed. They are all lies.

Logically then, you would feel that if I do not believe it to be untrue, it is not a flame.

I don't know if I can agree with you about that. If you honestly believe that I am a racist, and call me one, I will still consider myself flamed.

As to your first point, I do not deny that I am posting this question now because of what has transpired. I did say it is not "directly" connected. None of the circumstances I mentioned were involved in my removed post.


[This message has been edited by Dovster (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

When a label is thrown out to stifle debate or to inhibit debate or discredit a party to the debate on false grounds by applying a label that the recipient and most truly neutral parties would reject, then that is a "flame".

This does not even require the "obscenity test" of I know it when I see it.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

I can not argue with that position at all. It does, however, still leave some questions unanswered.

If the recipient does not reject it, but it meets all the other requirements, is it still a flame?

In the situation I cited re IJK, let us assume (and again, this is an assumption for argument's sake only) that IJK does not reject the Islamic Jihad label. Is it still a flame? After all, the poster is still trying to discredit him.

Let's assume that I call you a Communist but am not trying to stifle debate. In fact, I am trying to stimulate it by making you defend your position. I am lying about you, but is it still a flame?

In both above instances it could be considered a flame and personal attack.. but it is for the person or persons being labelled with the perjorative label who should weigh in on such matters of it being a "flame" or "non-flame". After all, it's their reputation on the line and to have their reputation sullied with false labels is like telling someone they are guilty until proven innocent.

PS. Calling me a communist would be a joke. I love money and personalized financial returns way too much. I, like most of us on FT, like building up our frequent flier mileage bank accounts and getting "elite" status and "benefits". Nothing socialistic about that.

[This message has been edited by GUWonder (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

With this point, you made me realize what prompted to me start this thread. I think it had been in the back of my mind and you just brought it forward.

Flaming is not as dangerous as it might seem. The person being flamed is not the one who is injured -- the person who does the flaming is.

When ftomnibox wrote about me that "Calling people ragheads, terrorists, or murderers is hate speech and is against the TOS...OMNI is not a forum for spewing hatred and right-wing ideology. Freerepublic.com is the place for that if one is a neanderthal", I did not respond.

A number of people came to my defense. Ftomnibox was the one who was looked down upon, not me.

Indeed, had my post not been removed, I would never have entered that thread at all.

If I were to write that "GUWonder is a miserable Commie ratfink," I would (rightfully) find the wrath of most FTers upon my head. Nobody would think less of you, only of me.

Yet if my post were to be removed, I would be free to post elsewhere without people knowing what kind of person I am.

Isn't it better to keep the posts, allow the readers to decide if it is a flame, and to have them answer the flamer?

An attempt to flame, I would say. Both insult and provocation are required for that gambit to "materialize." In any event, this is not Usenet, and the jargon term is perhaps better eschewed entirely.

Then again, I'm geezer enough that I still consider "newbie" to be a barbarous neologism.

Its all documented pretty clearly here: http://www.flyertalk.com/rules, under the section "Actions That Will Compel FlyerTalk Intervention".

Having said that, each forum has its own "intervention threshold". Some of what you've illustrated may be acceptable in one forum, but not another. Premptive action is always a judgement call by the moderator. A complaint from a member makes will alway cause investigation...

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 23, 2004).]

Searching the posts of IJK, one will find an overwhelming positon of pro-Arab and pro-Muslim taken. This in itself does not make one an Islmic Jihad Kid, but on deeper evaluation of his comments, I do wonder. Notice his reaction to being labeled this back in December on two separate threads - silence. If he was offended and considered it a flame, the least he could have done is called attention to it. Before I posted my deleted comments about IJK, I reviewed his comments over the last few months and based on his posts and attempting to provide an opportunity for him to directly defend his positons, I determined my comments were justified. This was not allowed since my post was deleted.

On another note, but indirectly related, it is rather interesting that my "raghead" thread is allowed to remain but my post calling IJK an Islamic Jihad Kid was deleted.

For the third time this week I'll explain my motives for leaving your "raghead" thread in it's closed state; when only a small portion of a thread contains flames or other TOS violations (like the thread Dovster is referring to) we will edit the offending portions, we do this to allow the other fellow members to continue posting to the thread as they often contain interesting comments, when the ENTIRE thread is a violation (like posting about "Raghead taxi drivers at LGA") then we'll close the entire thread.

Just to please you all, and after reading the 10th complaint about leaving that thread closed I have decided to delete it.

In my opinion this is the question. It is clearly censorship when a moderator edits another poster's comments. I'm not questioning their ability and authorization, but rather the wisdom. I can even understand the urge to edit as being concerned with further escalation devolving into chaos. I simply disagree with the method.

I'd much rather see the comments and decide for myself than wonder what was the kerfuffle all about. For example, the comments of ftomnibox are clearly a flame yet remain in two different threads for all to see. I'm fine with those comments still present as others can take a look at the record to see if they have any merit. It's when comments are removed that we cannot fairly judge. Further, the removal of some comments but not others really begins to distort the record.

Actually, that proves nothing. I was flamed by the moronic post from ftomnibox but did not call attention to it.

I felt that it was better to allow others to make their own minds up concerning him.

IJK's reaction to being associated with Islamic Jihad can not be determined by anyone except IJK.

Stop focussing on the "Islamic Jihad Kid" as being the only part of the flame, there was more to the post than just that. If we are going to complain about moderation let's at least do it honestly.

http://www.flyertalk.com/rules


"We" in this case is Randy and Randy's staff (which includes the Moderators).

Moderators have been asked in the past to do more "editing" than "closing" in an effort to keep an individual poster from closing down a productive thread with an off topic comment.

You agreed to abide by the TOS when you signed up.

------------------
Sean
aka: skofarrell
Moderator, OMNI & American Express