ScottC.

That of course is one way to tackle the problem. Secretly time-out anyone posting on OMNI that ruffles your collective feathers there. And in fairness to you personally I am partially talking about matters that pre-date your time there as a Mod, so theoretically you ALSO do not know the full story behind that time out, that directly lost one of, if not Flyertalks's most valuable poster.

Using your logic the recent thread I highlight below should, if this policy were even handed in implementation, have surely resulted in TWO (2) time-outs not one?

Can you and/or your colleagues please post here and confirm that on that thread one poster therein was breaching the TOS more than another? (From where I sit, neither was, by OMNI standards, but I have no vote in the matter of course so I am asking you.)

For one poster involved there to be called on OMNI a "fascist," "homophobe," "hater," and "social communist" etc, etc, with no time-out consequences AFAIK for the single FT'er doing so clearly implies (to me anyway) the Moderators ENDORSE and approve of such comments? And full disclosure - I have no beef personally with that poster who posted such remarks. He and I have never once crossed swords IIRC, and hardly ever posted on the same threads - I am just playing the 'Devil's Advocate' here a little. seeing he is part of the thread below that we are discussing here.

All those comments were from one poster on the thread who is still merrily posting away on OMNI. Again using your argument to support your recent actions did THAT poster not heavily cross the line many times in the past as well? Knowing your answer must be "yes" - how many OMNI time-outs has THAT poster received? (If that is not breaching the Super-Secrecy code.) If these comments I list were made to just one FT'er there well may be 100s of similar made to others on OMNI in the past?

Aren't those terms in clear breach of the TOS? Are they not beaching Randy's rules you say just now you are secretly and impartially upholding - by timing out the RECIPIENT of them and thus losing him to FT by doing so? Does Randy agree anyone terming another FT'er a "fascist" or "hater" is within the TOS? Clearly the Moderators DO from my reading of things if no action was taken?

Acting in secret works of course. Wonderfully. For decades in Eastern Europe, and in China and Zimbabwe today it serves as one surefire way of silencing all dissent, no matter how valid. And anyone that dares criticise those actions is also jumped upon by the same folks. Read the above. Works like a charm in Zimbabwe.

The rest of the world is generally open and transparent and accountable about what they do and why, and surprise surprise, by doing it that way, others can learn from it possibly and be guided to more moderate posts.

Both systems WORK. The latter I prefer for some reason.



[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Jan 15, 2004).]

IMO, you'd have to be more specific as to those specific instances in which ONE member was called a hater or pharmaceutic-dependent nut or @sshole or terrorist-cell subversive or whatever by another member. I can think of such instances, but the person who most uses the phrase "social communist" has NEVER, to my knowledge, crossed that line. People call Republicans, the French, Americans, our present administration, Democrats, liberals, Ann Coulter, etc. all kinds of things, most all of which are acceptable in debating issues involving those groups.

For example, you can legitimately (IMO) say that "Republicans are haters" (not that I think that is a legitimate statement of fact, rather it's legitimate to state that, since it's an opinion). You can NOT legitimately say that "(another member) is a hater." Same applies to other labels like "fascist" or "homophobe/homophobic". You CAN say, I feel, that another member holds hateful ideas since you are labelling abstract things - ideas - but when you do so, you are beginning to get into murky waters, and probably should "leave it at the keyboard" as Randy has said in the past.

All my $0.02.

There's no such thing as a "most valuable poster" in my opinion. Everyone who posts (and lurks) is valuable.

As far as the rest of your comments are concerned, I take my direction from Randy. I'll leave up to him to comment on if he wants things changed.

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

Well seeing the person I refer to is not posting due directly to your OMNI time-out, I'd expect no other answer.

And please do not misquote me - I said "lost one of ......"

Seems to be a convenient lack of response as to how calling another FT'er a "fascist" seems perfectly acceptable to you and within the current TOS? The FT'er getting CALLED a fascist however incurs a time-out. Neat logic.

And to clarify. I am not inventing these assertions.

The two Flyertalkers involved above have no objections to me raising them here, and anyone may feel free to check with them as to the veracity of my information or their thoughts on the matter.

------------------
~ Glen ~ sipping bubbly from a UA 747-400 exit row 15 near you SOON!


[This message has been edited by ozstamps (edited Jan 15, 2004).]

.

[ozstamps[/b]: ... directly lost one of, if not Flyertalks's most valuable poster ...

I am still posting!

Can you provide a quote? I don't happen to recall ANYONE ever calling another member a fascist. Thanks.

The only valuable members who have been driven away were not driven away by moderators.

They were driven away by the actions, three years worth and counting, of one person.

ozstamps, just cut the crap and name names so that we can all get on the same page and have a reasoned, intelligent, informed discussion about the issue.

<sigh>

Since we're so into accuracy, a few more clarifying points:

First, I did not time anyone out alone. jfe and I, or jfe, Scottc, and I have always agreed on any suspensions of posting privileges together. Three different people, three different styles, three different perspectives.

Second, Randy is informed when we act, and always has the ability to override or question our decisions. We welcome it. As Scott has already mentioned: the few times Randy has commented, he's found our "punishments" too lenient.

Third, the OMNI moderators do not read every thread. The volume is simply too heavy. We largely act like any big city cop: someone typically has to complain before we act. Sure we see something ourselves every now and then, but we�re not omni-present. As far as the �smoking gun� is concerned, you may be right about the "fascist" comment, but the insulted in this case (to my knowledge) did not complain to the moderation team.

Fourth, most timeouts from OMNI have been handed out in pairs. For the case of one of our most valuable posters, the party of the second part came back after a week, and we�ve not had a single issue since. The party of the first part chose not to come back. That was his decision. If any of the �self banished� elect to come back, they will be welcomed with open arms, as long as they stick to the TOS.

Lastly, the fact remains in that case and every other since, the �punished� simply did not follow the moderator�s only instruction: �Abide by the TOS at all times�.

I couldn't recall it either.

So I did a search. Amazingly enough, the search function can't seem to find it. The term was used on 19 threads, mostly to describe actions of third parties, like Fox News. But I only bothered to go back 90 days... I did find it interesting to see who on OMNI seemed to use the term most often in the last 90 days.

Oz, you did check with the source of your accusation first right? You don't spend a lot of time on OMNI, so I'm sure you didn't witness it yourself, so can you please provide the link?

[This message has been edited by skofarrell (edited Jan 15, 2004).]

skofarrell - so the search function on OMNI is working perfectly every time as far as you know?


OMNI search tool not functioning right

Yep,

That's gotta be it.

Search is broken. No need to offer proof.

skofarrell,

In the opinion of THIS (love that bolding) member, you have yet to "Time-Out" a valuable member.

So in other words, you're making an unfounded accusation?

I know if I were the one accusing a moderator of improper actions, I'd have the link handy.

But that's just me.