I have a question, and REALLY hope I can ask it without this breaking down into exactly what I am talking about.....

This is a section copied directly from the TOS...

"Personal Attacks - link to this guideline
We encourage a healthy exchange of opinions. If you disagree with another member, challenge the opinion or idea - not the person. Personal attacks, insults and "flaming" will not be tolerated and will be removed, and the violator will be subject to disciplinary action. You may challenge others' points of view and opinions, but do so respectfully and thoughtfully. Attacks against groups or classes of job holders (such as Transportation Security Administration employees) will not be tolerated. "

Can I ask why the bold part (emphasis mine) is pretty much ignored by the moderators. Ironically the example agency given is the one that is allowed almost none stop.

Dont get me wrong I am not overly enamoured with TSA or what they do, but it makes no sense to me how the constant bashing in signatures, posts and the security forum in general are not in direct violation of this rule. It is so rampant on FT it is sad (not to mention monotonous)

Randy I am really curious to hear your explanation and better understand this.

I am curious about this as well....

How in the world do the attacks on TSA promote understanding and comments from TSA to understand?

It looks like a potential forum for reason and rationale turned into a slugfest and all of the TSA folks disappeared.

As I have already been PM'd by one Moderator scolding me for even asking Randy this, I want to be VERY clear I am NOT claiming the problem is about the Security forum only. And is NOT about just the moderator of that forum. My question relates to (as I said originally) signatures (in which many of Kip Hawley is insulted repeated), in multiple forums and a gazillion posts.

As a matter of fact I wasn't looking to address any specific problem. As I said, I am trying to understand the TOS and can't make sense of that rule and its usage. And yes I would like to hear Randy's view of this rule, why it was written so specifically, yet seems to not be applied.

Thanks in advance for your answer Randy.

I wasn't going to post in this thread, and will still not address the main issue -- I will leave that to Randy -- but as a member of TalkBoard who voted both on signatures and on the cited TOS provision I do want to clarify some side points which have been raised here.

1. As I noted in a recent thread, moderators do not remove signatures. TalkBoard voted to leave that to Randy's discretion.

2. An insult to a particular person (including Kip Hawley) is not a violation of the TOS unless he is a member of F/T.

3. The TOS provision cited was never intended to prevent attacks on organizations. You are free to state that "Southwest is the worst airline in the world" or that "The TSA is completely worthless and should be disbanded tomorrow."

The provision was meant only to prevent classes of employees from being attacked (eg: FAs, TSA screeners, Gate Agents). Moreover, it was not intended to protect someone simply because he is a member of such a class -- you are free to denounce the particular employee who gave you problems or who mishandled his job.

Where you would run afoul of this provision is if you were to condemn all FAs, screeners, etc. When I voted to pass this, it was to provide protection for such employees who might be FT members. If FlyerTalker Joe works as a TSA screener, and I post that "TSA screeners aren't smart enough to get jobs flipping burgers at McDonalds" then I am saying that FlyerTalker Joe is not smart enough to work at McD's -- and, to me, that is a personal attack.

The main issue which you raised -- whether this is being enforced and, if not, why -- I am, as I said earlier, leaving to Randy to discuss.

Not true, for better or for worse or for unchanged.

Dov, thanks for your post. Point #1 I did not know, that is really interesting. As an aside, just out of curiosity (not even relevant to my question) do those kinds of actions now remain with Randy or does the new owner take those over, I would assume Randy....

On 2 and 3...Valuable information, thank you, but OMG if those arent loopholes you could fly an A380 through I am not sure what are. The whole organization can be bashed, but all the employees of the whole organization cant be simultaneously, but each of them individually can be, if I understand you correctly.

I think with that understanding my question on enforcement kind of answers itself, it is all semantics and the rule is pretty irrelevant and circumnavigated by symantics (and doesnt have the connotations I was sure taking it for).

Thanks for the helpful information!!!!!

Great question!
I hope the answer is as good...

I do not agree that they are loopholes and your posting history shows that you basically work in that same way.

You have denounced US Airways repeatedly (as have I). You have also complained loudly and strongly about a particular employee who gave you problems (as have I).

Still, I don't recall you ever saying anything along the lines of "all US employees are idiots". If you had, you would have been making a personal attack on those employees who are F/T members.

Are some people reading the word "all" where the word "all" is not used?

People criticize overseas call centers (and their reps) as a group quite often on FT. Is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

People criticize muslims as a group on FT quite often, is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

People criticize racist profilers as a group on FT, is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

Note that the word "all" does not precede "people" in any of those situations. Are any or all of those violations by the TOS "standard" that some would have applied to protect the TSA as a group?

Is this about some people not liking a message (that doesn't gel with their own) and thus trying to kill the messenger in the pursuit of silencing that "disliked"/"not accepted"/"not favored" message, a message which is not necessarily a TOS violation by standards applied to-date? I'm sure that such silencing would make some people happy, but hopefully that's not the way FT management and deputed personnel operate, for it's not the way FT has systematically operated before either.

In reply to GUWonder's questions:

People criticize overseas call centers (and their reps) as a group quite often on FT. Is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

It is not a violation to criticize call centers, which are organizations. Whether or no it is a violation to criticize their reps is dependent on what kind of criticism it is. If you say that foreign representatives have difficulty in understanding English, IMHO, it would not be. If you say they are idiots, it would be.


People criticize muslims as a group on FT quite often, is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

It is most definitely a TOS violation. Any defamation of a religious, racial, or sexual group is a violation (albeit under a different paragraph of the TOS).

People criticize racist profilers as a group on FT, is that a TOS violation by the same "standard"?

No, it is not a violation to criticize someone who is a racist. It is, however, a violation to call a member a racist simply because he differs from you on the value of profiling.

It's still unclear, given what's been enforced/not enforced as a TOS violation in the time since that language has been in play on FT.

So is it or is it not a TOS violation to criticize racist profilers (or their advocates), whether the racist profilers (or their advocates) are racists or not being another matter?

So is it or is not a TOS violation to criticize overseas call center reps, like when someone says they are "useless" or "worse than ___"?

Is it or is not a TOS violation to criticize members/membership of a political party or organization?

Is it or is it not a TOS violation to criticize journalists, bankers, regulators, elected officials, bureaucrats, frequent flyers, children, parents with children, mid-tier elites, entry-level elites, gate boarding agents, "riff-raff" travellers without status trying to board with FF elites, check-in agents, etc? Short of someone saying "all" XYZ are ____, is it a TOS violation or not? Is it only criticism that is a TOS violation (i.e., blanket praise, pom-pom crowd-type behavior -- and no I'm not speaking of artillery -- is in the clear)?

This to me is the loophole that I think makes this seem unenforceable and kind of irrelevant. You can leave the word ALL off any statement and it fits the rules as Dov described them, or if questioned/reprimanded you can stand on that.

You asked if my question was about silencing views I dont agree with, no. My question truthfully was to understand that part of TOS as I didnt understand it. My issues with it was less about the TS/S forum, I can avoid that (and mostly do), it isnt even w1ith posts.

My frustration is related to signatures, those are the ones that jump out and slap me with the issue. When I read "Person X is Stupidier than my Banana Slug" over and over it really bothers me. I dont particularly like most of the people being bashed either, but I dont care what loophole you come up with THOSE ARE PERSONAL ATTACKS on someone. And I was trying to understand why FT lets the reputation of the site be drawn down with that garbage.

I now expect someone to come along and tell you how to turn signatures off.

I think you use an important word above, which also has a role in why I asked this (btw bold above mine obviously). The difference between criticism and attackingis not dealt with as well as it could be, IMHO.

I am FINE with criticism...Example: The policy x came up with is insane and here is why...THAT is criticism. X is a raving insane lunatic as a signature - I am not ok with. It's not criticism, that is an attack!!!! I have a problem with the second, the first I am all for.

I haven't seen any FT signatures where a particular FTer is being personally attacked in the signatures at any time this year. Maybe I've been lucky/blind or it's not a large unresolved issue? (I've not disabled signature viewing, so that can't be it either.)