No, I can't.

Can you tell me why every thread in Travel Technology posted by or bumped by one particular member had a 5 star rating (at one point)? Did they deserve a 5 star rating? Most were simply news postings, no "user added" content.

Or in the US forum (which has less than a dozen threads with ratings at all and most of those are the stickies at the top of the forum)? Or in the UA forum? Or in the DL forum? Or in OMNI? (I'm quite sure if they are not already that these threads will have been "downrated" in short order, but as of the time of this writing, they were rated as such).

Without further commentary, I'd submit that what we are seeing here is "what goes around indeed comes around." Here, of course, is relative to the "Happy Birthday Doc" thread in question (I gave it a 4, for those who care--usually, I'd give birthday threads a 3 at best, because I personally think they are clutter, but I've met Doc and think he's a nice guy).

Both practices are stupid (uprating average threads and downrating threads to "get back" at another member), each in it's own way. I'd submit that ratings, much like reputation, are useless if anonymous. I can tell you straightaway that the "rating" function is useless to me without knowing who rated the thread. If I post the question "Does SEA have the best population of travel minded folks in the world" and you, Hunki, Chex, and Missy give the thread 5 stars, is that really a fair and balanced viewpoint on the thread?

I do admit the the last example was a bit over the top, but for a reason.

I'd also submit that this is yet another knob for the children to turn who did not learn anything from the reputation fiasco.

Well, after reading some of the observations made here, perhaps it's time to update the TOS and spell out EXACTLY when it is permissible to give a thread one star? I honestly don't know when it's okay anymore. Here are some ideas:

You don't like the person starting the thread

You don't like one or more of the people posting to the thread

You don't like the person who is the subject of the thread

You like one of the people posting to the thread, but you didn't like what he/she posted

The thread is too old for anyone to care

You don't like the person that BUMPED an old thread from three years ago, even though you liked the thread

You liked the thread until it was poisoned by one the FT trolls

One or several persons in the thread posted incorrect information, thus tainting the entire thread

You complained to the moderator about a thread, and the moderator chose to do nothing about it

You suspect that someone with multiple handles has rated the thread 5 stars several times

The same person has started numerous threads on almost exactly the same subject

The thread has Bush/Kerry in the subject line (take your pick)


Anyone else have some ideas?

I am sure many would agree. ^

It is not just one thread involved ClueByFour. It is clearly a tiny sicko and warped group - of about 6 core members - pre-planning in unison a number of threads via email or PM to force down the Star rating on threads they do not post to themselves.

As other have posted earlier, it is based entirely on the identity of thread starters and not thread content. It has been occuring for months.

I am glad Randy has indicated he will look into this.

You have said it all IMHO.

Thank you alanw.

And thanks to Morrissey for his very insightful contribution above. Many of us have 'some ideas' I am sure.

In contrast, don't forget about a small group of members who has acted in unison to bump up the ratings on threads, based soley on the identity of the thread starter, with no regard to content.

Both need to end.

Agree.

I did mention that in post #3 of this very thread, which was multi Star rated #5 before even one reply was posted:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showp...83&postcount=3

The next post was however (no names, no pack drill):

<<Yawn>>

I'm confused, oz. Why would you call doc's family a sicko and warped grouped group of a bout 6 core members? That's surely a TOS violation. I didn't know doc had that many people in his family, but it was conclusively proven during the reputation debacle you so vigorously pursued that doc's family was the only group who ever did any coordinated dinging.

I do hope Randy will also look into these attacks of yours on doc and his family. I trust he will, becuase everytime you start and stir up one of these debacles, he always gets around to banning you. You'd think you'd step down as chief inquistor, but oh, well.

See how it works. It's just like the last witchunt that got him banned. What he does is try to weave together lots of issues, then you get you to admit to something innocent amongst the confused mess of issues. For example, here's how he tried to pull me in. I started this thread, and he thinks he saw some ratings on it (I have no idea, lucky we can't prove him a liar), so he can instantly drag me into rating the long list of birthday threads, but that'snot good enough, so it must be a coordinated group. Even that's not good enough, so it must be the same secret cabal that he invented back in the last whinefest he whipped up.

Again, I'm very glad Randy is looking into this so quickly. Normally, we have to wait through a couple of weekends (always weekends, Hmmmm) of this before Randy gets around to banning him. I only hope we end up with a moderator in ORP so that these things never catch hold and we deprive Glen of his bizarre pleasure in creating these bouts of trouble.

Of course, you would have thought it would be enough for Randy to close the thread about the original issue. Sadly, no.

Another, and more current colloquial usage of the term "gang banger" is as applied to a member of a gang of hoodlums:

1. gang banger

Someone with gang affiliations; someone who rolls with gangsters; Gangster

Don't go out at night, gangbangers'll f*** you up and roll ya.

I have never noticed this and certainly never have done so myself (with the exception of giving both the birthday threads 5 stars after the attacks began).

If somebody is doing it, it is damaging in so far as it makes the ratings less worthwhile. However, that is the extent of the damage.

Nobody will be insulted by it. No one's feelings will be hurt by it. Nobody's birthday will have a dark cloud cast over it.

If FlyerTalker X were to go on a moderated forum and say to someone he likes, "You are a genius" there would be no problem. If he were to go to the same forum and say to someone he dislikes, "You are an idiot" his post would be removed immediately.

There is, indeed, a big difference between an unearned compliment and an unearned insult.

That's actually untrue. Randy has made it clear that threads about another flyertalker are not permitted. He explicitly said "outside of a Happy Birthday thread in Community," we weren't supposed to have threads about other people. I totally agree with this for this very reason, but personally think it should extend to happy birthday threads.

As someone noted in a welcome back thread, we shouldn't have a thread saying happy birthday if it is unacceptable to post "I wish you had never been born" in that same thread. Why should we have threads where only one viewpoint is allowed?

You started this whole thread here just to ridicule another person, quite obviously, then you add some posts in this thread with rather hateful content like this one, which you might find funny. I don't, and I am sure I am not the only one. If you agree that threads about other flyertalkers are not permitted, why did you start this thread and why do you make posts like the one below?

Plus, the statement you make is a lie. FewMiles and some others from YOUR group (no, I will not list the names) did coordinated dinging. FewMiles got banned for it for a while.

Robb, I don't see how what I said is untrue. Yes, I can not start a "Robb is a wonderful person thread" but if you were to post in a thread about, say, Bosnia I would be perfectly free to reply to something you said with "You are a genius." I would not be free in the same thread to post, "You are an idiot."

I sincerely hope (and believe) that you see a major difference between wishing somebody a happy birthday and posting "I wish you had never been born."

Of course, as filthy and as objectionable such a post would be, it would have the very minimal saving grace of having been done publicly instead of issuing the same insult under the cowardly cloak of anonymity.

So, in other words, the only permissible rating of any thread should be 5 stars. Anything less is a cowardly, anonymous insult?

So, then I guess you agree that the reputation system (sans anonymity) was more appropriate than the current rating system.

I really do get confused by a group that says on the one hand ratings are meaningless and on the other hand they are incredibly powerful statements whose impact knows no bounds.

All I know is I, yet again stand baselessly accused of being a member of an anonymous cabal simply because oz is pretty sure he saw a few 5 star votes on my thread soon after it was posted.

Let me make it perfectly clear that I don't know who all voted doc's birthday thread at 1 star. By my last count (assuming only 1* and 5* votes), there were 18 of 30 people who rated it 1*. I certainly don't know 18 people on flyertalk, so I'm left, once again, saying "Go Fish." Sadly, fish is exactly what this group will do since they have repeatedly started these kinds of issues simply to reiterate their hatred for a certain group of flyretalkers, myself included. I'll have to go look to see who else was in my super-secret cabal last time, as I truly don't remember. I'm assuming it's the same group standing accused this time.

For crying out loud!

Would you look at these last four pages? This thread started out with a serious question, and has now been hijacked by a bunch of mewling and puking about �stars� and who gets them and why and how we mustn�t hurt people�s feelings by raining on their birthdays.

Is that what this community has turned into? It reminds me of nothing so much as a first grade class where in early February the teacher has to tell all the first-graders that they will not be allowed to give anyone a Valentine unless they give everyone a Valentine, because otherwise the people who don�t get a lot of Valentines will have their poor weak little flickers of self-esteem stamped out by the people who do get a lot.

Good grief! Are we all in first grade still? Is everyone�s ego so fragile that it is threatened by getting only one star on a birthday thread?

IOAFIBB, people! Get a life! (If you can�t find one anywhere else, they�re selling them on e-bay.)