Omni Double Standard
 

Dovster, the OMNI moderation double standard is alive and well. And whenever there is irrefutable evidence presented or pointed questions asked, they are routinely met with silence.

Selective responses
 

Really, well, how come everyone is bickering how terrible we are, and that we meet things with silence, and yet, I have posted a few questions but no one has answered them.

So, back to you ;)

Much closer to "home" than The White House....

Where does calling someone a "Cretin" fall into those standards of tastelessness?

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=91458

Or "Idiot?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=idiot
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=idiot

And calling the person that eliminated Godivas from United flights a "Moron?"

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ighlight=moron

Just wondering.

Those are just from the United forum. I also seem to recall others in other forums that contained more. One to avek00 comes to mind that contained several if I recall.

;)

It's always been my impression that you can't say anything you like here...even if it's true! But you can say anything you like as long as you say it in way that isn't a personal attack on a fellow FlyerTalkers in violation of TOS.

I always thought that the quickest way for Gordon Bethune to stop all the morons and idiots and other insults being tossed his way, would have been to make a post. Then he would be protected by TOS! :)

But then again...what defines a "FlyerTalker?" I've always considered anyone that even lurks occasionally and that has never registered for posting privileges, to be a FlyerTalker too. Even met couple that had the FlyerTalk tags on their bags!

Call someone a moron out on the street face-to-face...better be prepared to face any consequences. Same here in writing, IMHO. Whether it be from the offended parties, or from the owner of this house (Randy), or from his appointed custodians (Moderators).

JFE, I have never said that you are terrible. I do, as you know, see a difference in way some people's posts are handled on Omni as opposed to those made by others.

However, you have me at a loss. I have not seen the questions you refer to. If you would repeat them, and if they have anything to do with what I posted either now or in the past, I would be happy to try to answer them.

None of them were directed at you, but you can read, and you will find them ;)

I saw no posting from you at all, much less questions, in the "Aborigine" thread and in this thread came up only with the following:

Don't we have enough darn threads regarding reputation already?

My answer: Yes, we do.

The other was not really a question, but it could be interpreted as such:

Then explain how you think that is OK to call us gestapo

My answer: I do not think it is okay. I greatly dislike the misuse of terms (in the past I have objected to "Fascist" and "Nazi") as they not only are insulting to the recipients but also dilute the onus which should be placed squarely on those who actually qualify.

Undoubtedly in the course of the thousands of posts you have made in Omni, you have asked many other questions. However, these two threads were the only logical places for me to look.

Of course, none of this has to do with the issue at hand: Specifically, why certain people are allowed to repeatedly get away with extremely offensive posts (and the one I cited above was one of the more mild ones) whereas others find their posts removed. (I have not seen Cactus Pete's post, but am going to take your word for it that it was in violation of the TOS -- just as the one proceeding it, which was allowed to stand, was in violation.)

I have to admit that it does confuse me. If I considered the Omni mods to be "terrible" people I would understand. I will even accept Sean's statements that he is a Republican who tends more to the right. And, yes, I have seen your not-too-fond opinions of Hillary.

Moreover, on an individual level, I have the highest respect for Scott (while not sharing his political views).

Yet for all of that, time after time, posters from the extreme left are allowed to publish some of the most vile things imaginable while much more mild posts from the right are removed.

Yeap, just those two, and thanks for answering them ^, but the dude making the comment has not ;)

Guilty as charged :o

Well, I might have to disagree with you here :p , just kidding, ScottC is an excellent dude


Thanks for answering the two questions, even though they were not directed at you :)

I never claimed that you were a terrible person. I am just looking for consistency.

You are asking rhetorical questions about the definition of a word that we clearly are never going to agree upon. I gave you my definition of the word, which is the meaning that I intended it to have.

On the other hand, when moderators are stalking me, making up new rules on the fly, selectively enforcing other rules, and publicly threatening me with a suspension, then yes, I expect answers to some simple questions. See http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=314797]. If the company line is "report it to a moderator", then I also expect the moderators to provide the courtesy of a reply.

Just to be clear, the questions posed were:

If you are saying that the Evangelical Christian faith is somehow superior to, or more legitimate on this forum than a 'Kangaroo bone faith', then it is YOU who are violating the TOC.

I think the gestapo comment is inappropriate when directed at anyone here on FT.
But as an American, I have to live with Bush's atrocities being commited in my name. As a world traveler, Bush has painted a big red target on MY back. If anyone can be compared to a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc., it is unfortunately, my President. I believe that calling him a moron, is being polite.
I don't think the moderators were wrong to close the thread, since the subject has been well covered elsewhere. I also don't believe there was anything personal about it.

Your questions have been answered Pete, you just aren't listening.

Here's the TOS:

Here's your removed post (the one that got you the warning):

Now honestly, how is your removed post living up to the standard of: "by all means, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person." and "You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully." ?

Post all you want on OMNI, but take personal comments like the one above to email and you'll never hear from a moderator. Just like the hundreds of other individuals that post on OMNI on a daily basis who never hear from a moderator.

Now honestly, how does Cactus Pete's removed post come anywhere near the level of the one below?

That quote, which comes from a thread that I know the moderators are familiar with, and was addressed from a Gay on the Left to a straight on the Right, still appears.

Are we to believe that the moderators saw it as an honest, friendly, offer to supply a fellow F/ter with a free t-shirt? I'm sorry, but I have too much respect for their intelligence to accept that.

It is just another example of the leeway extended to one group and denied to another.

Really? According to the posted TOS (Italics mine):

Seems to me that a poster who wishes to posit that one set of religious beliefs is superior (by whatever definition) to another is offering to engage in “a healthy exchange of opinions.” It may be foolhardy, but it seems to be “challeng[ing] the idea or opinion” not the person.

It is indeed true, of course, that in some repressive and unenlightened countries in the world, such a philosophical discussion would be culturally and perhaps even legally banned, but I have always (perhaps incorrectly) presumed that since FT is based in the United States, the TOS should be interpreted in accordance with US laws and culture, and such a discussion, if “respectful and thoughtful,” is well within the “tolerance zone” of reasoned debate.

Of course, if a poster used pejorative language, for instance calling one of the belief systems a “gutter religion,” that could hardly be said to be “respectful and thoughtful;” similarly, if a poster said of an individual – for example – “well, what else could one expect from a <enter faith here>” in a derogatory manner, that would constitute a personal attack, rather than a discussion of opinions or ideas.

And speaking of personal attacks, I would think that calling someone a “nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.” (unless of course the “target” held himself out to be, or had been properly convicted of being a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc.), besides being a violation of the TOS as not being “respectful and thoughtful,” would also constitute a “personal attack” in violation of the TOS.

It is one thing to posit “Resolved: That the President’s actions in the GWOT are ill-advised and counter-productive,” a topic which could easily be the subject of “respectful and thoughtful” – as well as spirited and even heated – discussion. It would seem, however, that simply calling the President names is neither “respectful" nor "thoughtful” and indeed may be said to cross the line into being “abusive”.

(And, with all respect to PremEx, I did not interpret the provision of the TOS which I again set out below:

as limiting the protection from personal attacks to members of FlyerTalk. In my understanding, the second sentence does not modify the third sentence; the ban on personal attacks is not limited to responses to an “idea expressed by another member” but rather is a complete and universal ban. If I am correct and that is the case, calling the President names is a violation of the TOS even though he may not (how would we know?) be a registered member of FT.)

I am open for “respectful and thoughtful” discussion on what I said here. No flames, please. :D

If your interpretation is correct, then FlyerTalkers must speak respectfully of all complete wastes of flesh, including Osama bin Laden and other worthless trash. Others might seek to extend the protection to dead trash like Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin and others.

I've always thought the TOS prevented attacks on other FlyerTalkers, not public figures (unless they register as FlyerTalkers and request that the disrepectful posting about them cease). :)

You may be right - as I said, it's only my interpretation.

However, what point is furthered by calling someone "worthless trash" in a post (whether they are indeed worthless trash or not)? Unless, of course, there's a topic over on OMNI entitled something like "Worthless Pieces of Trash I Love to Hate" (and for all I know, there could be :)). Usually such language only serves to inflame emotions, not enhance reasoned discussion.

Your reference to "public figures" (à la New York Times v. Sullivan?) seems to imply that any "protected speech" under the First Amendment may be OK under the FlyerTalkTOS. I don't think the TOS is meant to be coextensive with the First Amendment (as PremEx rightly observes earlier in this thread, "It's always been my impression that you can't say anything you like here...even if it's true!"). I think it is intended to ensure polite discourse. (Note that one can report a post for being "rude".)

So, if the idea encompassed by the TOS is to encourage reasoned discussion rather than "flaming," it seems to me that it would indeed be a violation to gratuitously call someone a piece of "worthless trash" irrespective of the objective truth of the statement.

Again, just my opinion.

FWAAA, do you realize the damage that such a policy could cause?

If a poster wished to state something negative about someone -- be it Hitler, Bush, Kerry, or the Pope -- he would be required to make his case factually.

It would no longer be enough to misrepresent history and/or current events. "Information" gleaned from extremist right and leftwing websites would have to have their sources identified. In turn, others wishing to debate such information would be forced to provide facts (and sources of facts) to back up what they were saying.

Before long, Omni would turn into an area with intelligent debates, leaving the blind idealogues out in the cold with no place to spew their invectives. This would no longer be the Omni we all know and love!

Every call is a judgment call. I let a lot of posts slide, like the one above specifically because it did not directly insult another poster.

FWIW, I personally removed 2 other posts yesterday on OMNI. And guess what? Both of them were directed at members of the so called "right".

So what? :rolleyes:

Interesting. Who decides what is factual or not?

The reader, who would have the advantage of knowing where it came from.

Example: If I were to post that Hitler depended on the support of homosexuals to gain power, and never had any real dislike of them, most people would disagree with me. They would point out that Hitler put many in concentration camps with "pink triangles" on their clothing.

However, if I were give details behind my statement, and provide attribution from a reliable source, it would be received differently:

During his rise to power, Adolph Hitler relied heavily on the fear of his storm troopers. Known collectively as the SA, they were formed from various "Frei Korps" organizations, the most powerful of which was headed by Captain Ernst Roehm.

As William Shirer pointed out in his masterpiece, "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", the SA gave its primary allegiance to Roehm, not Hitler. This created a potential source of opposition to Hitler, which was not comfortable for him. After becoming chancellor, Hitler wanted to consolidate his power and to do so needed the support of the German Army General Staff. They offered it on condition that the SA be disbanded.

Hitler's first step in doing that was the so-called "Night of the Long Knives" during which Roehm and many of his supporters were killed. Hitler had known of Roehm's homosexuality for years (Roehm never tried to hide it) and had defended him, saying that as long as he was good at his job his sexual preferences did not matter. However, in publicly justifying the murders Hitler professed shock at Roehm's sexuality (Roehm had been found in bed with his boyfriend).

As many in Roehm's inner circle were homosexual, including Edmund Heines who Hitler personally ordered to be shot along with his boyfriend, Hitler found it convenient to associate homosexuality with his other pet peeves, Jews and Communists.

H.R. Trevor-Roper, unquestionably the leading historian specializing in the Third Reich, has repeatedly contended that Hitler's subsequent persecution of homosexuals had two roots: Gaining support from those who were homophobic and Hitler's own concern that homosexuals might be Roehm supporters who had eluded his dragnet.

In the first instance, I had had merely made an unsupported statement. In the second, I gave attribution for the statement and gave the details behind it, giving it much more authority.

Conversely, if I had nothing to support the statement other than a quote from www.wehatehomos.com, most readers would not pay much attention to it.

(Incidentally, I sincerely hope there is no such website -- I would hate to give it free publicity!)

Dovster, I've got another suggestion for Sean. It's widely known that the OMNI moderators are both highly compensated for their duties on OMNI and that they admittedly have no other life outside OMNI.
I therefore suggest they repay FT for this compensation by spending a minimum of eight hours a day doing research in a scholarly institution until such time as they become indisputed legal, moral and political sages. They will then be in a position to pass judgement on all the various OMNI issues and debates and release THE final word on all factual issues.
This solution, IMHO, appears to be brilliant and I can find nothing to prevent it's immediate implementation. ;)

Darn it Cholula :mad:, it's not only bad that we had to return the black helicopters and the ninjas, and now you have to tell them about our moderator salaries, come on! :mad:

At least you are right about the fact, or at least in my case, that I have no life ;)

BTW, I have done the reseach you mentioned, and I have the definite answer on who shot JFK :cool:

<ding, dong...>

Hold on, someone is at the door

<muffled sound coming from the door> "Are you Jay, eff , eeee"

Yes, who is it?

<crash, breaks door>

<jfe speaking as he is being hauled away by people in black suits and sunglasses>

What do you guys want? WAIT ! It is you, I knew it, I knew it, I knew it......

;)

No, they most certainly have not been answered. Having asked the same questions on sevberal occasions, I can only surmise that you and the other moderators lack the intestinal fortitude to answer these questions honestly:

Sorry to take this "off-topic" and risk a suspension, but I really have no choice since neither you nor the other OMNI moderators bother to answer my questions sent via the "report a thread" function. A few questions:

Am I to understand that all off-topic OMNI posts will result in a suspension (or the heavy-handed threat of a suspension)? Your posts here surely indicate that to be the case. If so, somebody has a lot of work to do.

My post was not a personal attack. It was a comment on the continued use of sophomoric name-calling and the effect that has on a poster's credibility, perceived intelligence level and reputation (oops - can I say that here?). At any rate, why not use that handy-dandy PM function and ask me about it? ScottC edited my post only 4 minutes after it was made. Clearly, I was on-line at the time and could have responded (perhaps even editing my own post if the case were made) vitually instantaneously. And why no answer from the Mod who made the edit? In any event, as ozstamps has capably noted, it certainly appears that a Mod is looking to "pick a fight", stalking my posts and then selectively enforcing the "rules".

"Insulting another member is a "personal attack". " Please define "insulting". Does this new rule apply uniformly across all FT membership? I am very curious to know, as I asked the very same question the last time the issue came up and, sadly, I received no response. Lord knows that I am insulted by other FTers on a regular basis. And since you have threatened me with suspension for violating this new rule, I think it is only fair that you define the rule. That should not be too difficult - it is as "simple as that", right?

So, why the witch hunt? :confused: How did I get on your list? And how do I get off?

I was simply pointing out to the poster that the continued use of sophomoric pejoratives entirely discredits any substance (what little there is) of his posts. How is that a personal attack?

Dude, we gave you an answer, but it just happened that you didn't like what you got.

Same case with you calling us gestapo, you gave me your answer, but I didn't like it.

And I do have intestinal fortitude, I am Mexican, and my family gatherings have meals that look like buffets catered by Fear Factor ;)

MMMMMMMenudo!

Wait on JUST a minute. Mexican. Based in El Paso. Hot food.

You are not a fake duplicate handle for that Cholula guy are you? ;)

Unabashed Cholula Spam (Longest thread ever, in the Delta Forum!)

Actually, I don't eat much spicy food ;)

I invited Mr. Cholula for dinner here in ELP, but we haven't gotten around to it yet.

You're not on the "list" because there is no "list". There's no witch hunt. You've made 8 posts on OMNI since yesterday, over 30 in the last week. and the moderators have a problem with exactly 1 of them. That 1 post was off topic and directed at another poster. How is that a witch hunt?

Your "job" on FT is to debate the issues not to provide your opinion on other poster's credibility. People can judge that for themselves.

I've already pointed out how this comment violated the TOS, and why it was removed.

Cafe Central, dude, on my nickel next time I'm in town and we can get our schedules together.
Now back to the regularly scheduled debate on "Closing Threads"....

What???? YOUR NICKLE??? And I gotta spring for the Carvels in FLL?

Where do I go to complain about pro-Mexican/anti-Israeli discrimination?

You are on dude, either I am in El Paso, Juarez or stuck at the bridge :D

So let me know.

1. I never 'called' anyone a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc. I said that they were easily compared to a nazi/fascist/totalitarian/etc. (actually I may have said that certain federal employees were dumber than nazis, or that I thought they aspired to be nazis, but not that they WERE nazis.

2. by saying that Evangelical Christians would be offended at being compared to Kangaroo Bone worshipers, you imply that there is something offensive about Kangaroo Bone worshipers. Otherwise why would anyone be offended? This attack against the dignity and sanctity of the Kangaroo Bone, is tecnically a violation of the rules as stated:
IMHO, by disparaging the Kangaroo Bone in comparison to Evangelical Christianity, you have tecnically violated this rule.

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion.

I, however, read the TOS with slightly different emphasis, viz:


Thus, I do not read the TOS as barring all discussion of "sexual orientation, gender, race, color, religious views, national origin, or disability;" in my opinion they bar only those communications that are "knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, obscene, profane, threatening, harassing, offensive, vulgar, abusive, hateful or bashing."

Any discussion of value, or even of fact (since what is "fact" often depends on the reliability or credibility of the source cited for that alleged "fact") must of necessity deal with gradation, which of necessity means asserting that one thing or idea is superior (within the definition, express or implied, of what constitutes superiority) to another.

If the very assertion of superiority, with rationale for that assertion, constitutes banned discussion, OMNI would degenerate into the blandness of Barney the Purple Dinosaur and a "My, I'm OK, you're OK, we're all equally OK, and isn't it just wonderful that we're all OK" insipid saccharinity so severe as to cause diabetics to go into sugar shock.

I would agree that generally religion would not seem a fruitful field for rational discussion, since at a common level beliefs are not based on objective evidence and logic - indeed, "faith" has been defined as "belief despite the absence of proof". Further, it's difficult to continue a discussion when one party claims to be divinely inspired. However, there are at least three ways in which religion can be the subject of rational discussion (i.e., something beyond the "I'm right and you're wrong and you'll burn in Hell for that!" conclusory bombast):

1. The ethical structure of a religion can be rationally discussed and compared. If we hypothesize a religion that requires that every year 100 virgins must be thrown into a volcano after having been ravaged by the priesthood, one can discuss the ethical considerations in such doctrine, possibly comparing those considerations with the ones underpinning other religions or even civil law concepts.

2. Religions can be compared as tending toward or against realization of a particular (third) goal. For instance, if we hypothesize one religion that teaches that all non-believers must be put to death, and another that teaches a "live and let live" tolerance of competing beliefs, one can discuss which would be more likely to lead to a diminution in the violence found in the world today.

3. And, at an even higher plane, the logic of purported heresies can be debated, i.e., whether a particular conclusion follows logically from the doctrine and teaching of the religion. It may seem dry, but whether or not the Council of Nicea correctly resolved the Arian controversy ("The problem began in Alexandria, it started as a debate between the bishop Alexander and the presbyter (pastor, or priest) Arius. Arius proposed that if the Father begat the Son, the latter must have had a beginning, that there was a time when he was not, and that his substance was from nothing like the rest of creation.") is a matter that can be rationally discussed.

All of these are critical (in the sense of exercising close scrutiny, analysis and judgment) of one or more religions, yet I would submit none are violations of the TOS. Admittedly, the overly-sensitive are often "offended" where the objective observer sees nothing to be offended by (and some are offended merely when someone else suggests they may be wrong), but I doubt the FlyerTalk TOS were designed or intended to protect such sensitive souls from exposure to the real world.

Robust, adult discussion may result in some becoming unhappy; that's how it goes, and I don't think the TOS means to change that. If it does, OMNI will no longer be an adult discussion forum.

Actually, on further consideration, all of the above aside, there's another reason why I believe your statement is incorrect.

You say:


Leaving aside the fact that I did not say that "Evangelical Christians would be offended at being compared to Kangaroo Bone worshipers" - indeed, I haven't the foggiest idea of what the tenets of the Kangaroo Bone religion are, and so can't say how they would be received by Evangelical Christians, the statement that one religion would be offended at being compared with another doesn't, in my mind, "disparage" either.

The basic tenet of most religions is that said particular religion is correct and divinely inspired. It follows that believers in that religion of necessity believe that "competing" religions are incorrect and thus not divinely inspired. They compare their religion with all others; it is accordingly nonsense to say they would be offended at being compared.

What they (and probably any other religion) would be offended at, is not being compared to other religions, but rather what would bother them is to have other religions considered equal to or better than theirs.

So the simple statement that religion A would be offended at being compared with religion B is in no way "disparaging" of either, and of itself is probably not even true. What devout followers of one religion might well be offended at is being unfavorably compared with another. (And who could blame them?)

Another thing that a devout believer may be offended at is the atheist who says in effect that "all" religions are the same - and that offense would be close to universal. For a believer, who (remember) believes that his religion is true and divinely inspired, and that necessarily "all other" religions are false, to be lumped in with all of other ("false") religions would be a deep insult - in his view, all religions are not "the same".

There are two main exceptions to this: One is the multi-theistic religion that admits of numerous gods; the other is the "tribal" religion that envisions itself as the only tribe which is capable of being saved and therefore their god is the only god that matters and who cares what the lesser tribes believe anyway. (Although anyone of their own tribe who dared to unfavorably compare or equate their religion with another would undoubtedly be resented or worse.)

I'm of two minds whether to push the "enter" button on this one. This post has really drifted off-topic, and while I think it has intrinsic value, it does seem out of place. On the other hand, to the extent this discusses the "metatopic" of what would be a violation of the "Offensive Language/Material" paragraph in the TOS, I suppose it's still marginally on topic.

I'll push the button, but if the moderators decide to excise this post, I'll understand. It's a close call.

Why not?


;) :D

:D Funniest remark on this thread.

My mistake. It was Dovster who said that. You quoted my response to his statement, and I inappropriately assumed you were agreeing with Dovster. However as a christian, I am (slightly) offended by the characterization that all christians (or any faith) believe necessarily that their faith may be superior to or more legitimate than others'. I know who MY Lord and Savior is, but I don't assume to know yours.
If one is called to worship a Kangaroo Bone, and another is called to worship Jesus, BOTH should follow their calling, and neither worshiper should feel superior. Superiority is for those being worshiped.

I just happened upon this thread for the first time, due to a link to it.

[Usually threads in ORP about thread closure are of secondary interest to me, because I know, understand, and follow the ToS.]

So now I understand why the moderators have been so edgy and walking on egg shells about reputation. :eek:

And what led to someone's "banning," presumably from this very thread.

Is that a lifetime decision? Has this power been delegated to the moderators?

Well, it looks like we still have two posters in this thread (am I allowed to mention their names) to represent the ever-diminishing Flyer Talk right wing. Perhaps the Presidential election season in OMNI will be full of unanimity after all! :)

Couple of things:

Reputation will never have any bearing on a moderator doing his "job".

Moderators have the ability to timeout members for breaking the rules. The "Disciple Policy" is the last paragraph on the TOS:


Only Randy hands out lifetime bans.

HTH

Sheesh, Sean replied to this already, why are we trying to create even more controversy :rolleyes:

With the risk of not following this thread completely, I will try to answer it as best as possible.

My answers are in blue ;)

All moderators have been given the authorization to give people timeouts. Unfortunately the timeouts are system wide, and not OMNI specific as in the old software.

Hope this helps ;)