Public People on FT

Something interesting just came up about public people who may be also be FT members.

We all know that insulting/speaking badly of another FT by using his handle is a TOS violation.

What of a public person who is registerd on FT but not with his public name?

In other words, and to use one of your examples, if George Bush registered on FT as georgie, we couldn't say anything negative about georgie, but George Bush is still fair game. Correct?

I'm asking because handles are just that, and anyone can call themselves anything and there's really no way to check. Georgie can say he's George Bush, but this is still an anonymous handle.

In my opinion, it should be disallowed, because the person in question would, in fact, be an FTer. Then again, what do I know -- after all, my opinion has always been that this particular section of FT's TOS is largely a farce, if it creates a double-standard that allows attacks against certain groups, but not others.

Mike

Fair enough question and i would have to agree with your specific example, though when you say "use one of your examples..." you might actually be more correct in saying using one of "our" examples since Mr. Bush is all of ours (Americans) President, including yours (OK, so i know this will be a new thread on OMNI...!).

Another example which has happened in the past is when a member owns or has part in another business outside of their participation on FlyerTalk. For example, it is well known that the owner of BiddingForTravel.com is also a member of FlyerTalk. From time to time, FlyerTalk members flame her as an owner of that Web site. I try to drawn a difference in that they are not (and i will try and make sure it is not happening) criticizing her as a member of FlyerTalk, but rather as the owner of BiddingForTravel.com. And it's one of those situations that Sheryl and I disagree with when i would not edit a critique of BFT related to her in the role of owning that Web site.

When those situations happen, it's not so much FlyerTalk as it is the nature of the Internet. As long as you and I and our members make it clear that there can be a difference in which we cast comments related to a member, any member, including me, then we should be fine. There are instances on FlyerTalk where members has dissed me for certain decisions I've made regarding FlyerTalk. As long as it was in context of a decision i made as the founder/owner of FlyerTalk, then i really can't be an exception to the general rule on the Internet. But if they were to flame me as a member, then that's where the TOS comes in.

Is this what you needed to clarify?

Randy

It would seem that we disagree then. My point-of-view is that the role of an individual as a member of FlyerTalk and its goals should be held apart from the role that person has outside of FlyerTalk. If your line of thinking was the standard, then it would seem to be reason that all anyone would ever have to do is create a registration wherever opinion is allowed and become exempt from those responsibilities.

I may however, be misunderstanding your point. The TOS as I understand it is for regulation of FlyerTalk members and their particular participation on FlyerTalk. I think i do however understand what you mean by a double-standard. I really see it not as a double-standard, but rather the separation of two or more parts of a persons being.

But please feel free to correct me if i am not fully understanding your point.

Thanks.

Randy, you may not be familiar with the background of Mary's question. Someone made an uncomplimentary post about CNN reporter Richard Quest. As he is an FTer (albeit with a somewhat different user handle), and has publicly connected that handle with his real identity the question was raised as to whether the post was a TOS violation.

I agree with your reply (it would be ridiculous to allow any public figure to be free of criticism here simply by registering) but it does open some dangerous doors. A number of members have identified themselves on FT and given information about their jobs. Sad to say, we have some people here who would not be above using that as a back door way of making a personal attack.

(eg: "No. I am not attacking PosterJoe as an FT member, but I just did a "Google" on him and found out that he is an incredibly bad lawyer with absolutely no ethics.")

Perhaps the answer lies in the U.S. Supreme Court's "Times" decision. In effect, it makes public figures fair game for almost any criticism while still protecting private individuals.

Under it, someone in a position like Kip Hawley's would have very little protection but a lower-level TSA employee would have the same rights as anyone else.

Actually Randy, you once said if George Bush registered on FT your life would be much easier

I think I understand. We public person with a different handle than a real name (and even a real name) is fair game and no TOS violation occurs if we criticize public role.

This does assume the person using the handle is telling the truth. Even if it were a real name, we still have no way of determining validity unless they attend a Do and are vetted by the group

I can see how this is a really really gray area.

Though this specific issue does fall into it, my issue with the TOS is from a more broad view. Specifically, I've always had trouble with the fact that attacks upon certain groups (of which many FTers may or may not fall into) are okay, and others are not, depending upon which way the PC or other winds are blowing. For example, "TSA employees are idiots" is acceptable, even though it is a direct attack on any FTer who happens to be employed by that agency. In fact, a certain portion of FT is devoted to that mindset as a whole, where even the moderators of that forum will participate in those sorts of attacks.

Let's say that I were to go to OMNI, though, and throw out a hypothetical "gays are evil" post. I'd be likely leveled with a ban that is so quick, I didn't know what hit me -- even though I specifically named no names of FTers.

That, Randy, is the double standard that has always been, in my opinion, laughable. And the way I see it, this is really no different. Either FT needs to address attacks of all types, or ignore them. It shouldn't pick and choose which types are okay and which aren't, but I figured out a long, long time ago that I'm probably the only person who believes that.

Mike

The problem in this particular case does not lie in the TOS. In fact, while such attacks against any group of employees is prohibited by the TOS, the only group which is specifically named are TSA employees:

I am not, under the rules of the Only Randy Petersen Forum, allowed to discuss the enforcement of that provision.

Someone outs themselves as Joe Smith, famous reporter on a post.... the cat's out the bag.

Not otherwise.....

All acceptable points of view are welcome on FlyerTalk. My issue might be broader than yours. I'm not sure why any member (this reference is not about you specifically, but just a general example) would think that the TOS has to cover each and every specific item in the world that may need interpretation. I just don't think it's possible, though there are some members who think the TOS should be more defined than it is.

As for being troubled by this double standard you seem to see, I see it a bit differently. I really don't see FT the way you describe. For instance, your remark about the TSA. If you were to research my own personal remarks, you would read that I personally have not dumped on that group, and in fact have posted that I've never had a problem with them. Trying to connect me with anyone posting snarky remarks about the TSA would not serve a purpose here because a connection does not exist.

But pulling back from your point of view just a little, what do we see? We see in general society (something FlyerTalk did not invent) an ongoing snarky attack on the TSA by literally every form of media and lots of people. From the editorial pages of the nation’s largest and most respected newspapers to Jay Leno you will find that the TSA is being made fun of, is the recipient of sarcasm because of their dealings with the traveling public, and it is politically harangued as well.

So when scathing remarks about the TSA have been expressed by the traveling public in every form of communication known to man, to hold FT liable seems to me a bit unreasonable.

Now, I personally think that some of the members who visit that forum have a very poor ability to express themselves in what I would call a reasonable manner and know that in the past I’ve wandered into that forum and told a few members there to pipe it down a little. But there is something to consider in doing that - which side might you join when they and others complain about their right to free speech or variations of that argument?

As for the gays comment. At this point in society, it would be hard to believe that anyone would think they can possibly change another's point-of-view on that. Among those who visit FlyerTalk, I can't think of a single member who has ever changed their mind about gay society based on persuasive arguments on FlyerTalk. And because of that, the idea to post that "gays are evil" would immediately be seen as nothing more than a trolling comment, designed to commence a shouting match with no victory of argument possible. It should not be a topic to name names for the sake of a personal attack, and that’s why there is the covenant in the TOS. It is a topic, and there are others, that is often defined as troll-bait not just on FlyerTalk, but very likely on just about every other major responsible bulletin board in a single category like FlyerTalk.

Again, moving that view back a little. Was it not just recently that similar comments to your example lead one of the stars of Gray's Anatomy to be dismissed from that TV show? So, is FlyerTalk showing all that much more of a double standard than much of the U.S.? Trolling for negative reaction is something we all learn from politics, politics at the highest level here in the U.S., and to hold FlyerTalk responsible for that reflection just seems a bit of a stretch to me.

As for your comment "even the moderators of that forum will participate in those sorts of attacks." I'm sorry, but it is likely we will have to agree to disagree on this observation. I would never consider holding a moderator responsible for their comments made as a regular member of FlyerTalk, unless of course those comments were in violation of the current TOS, and even then only if their comments were more an affront than other members. I have long believed that moderators are (and really, they were) members first and should remain that way. Who the heck would volunteer to assist anyone on FlyerTalk if it meant that they would have to relinquish their privilege to be able to post the very same things that another member would be able to post? I just can't see any rational argument that would support that point of view. I've always found it fairly simple to separate the posts moderators make in their role as a volunteer moderator from those they are making as a regular member. But that is me.

As for picking and choosing which types of posts are okay and which aren't, FlyerTalk never pretended to be in that business. What FlyerTalk did and still does today is provide a place on the Internet where travelers of all kinds can come and learn more about their miles and points, and general travel information as an aside.

Members liked FlyerTalk so much for the community it provided, that they then wanted to make FlyerTalk a place where they could engage in other conversations they were having, conversations about sex, religion and even politics.

Did FlyerTalk invent those topics? No. Did FlyerTalk have much to do with these members thoughts on those topics? Probably not much at all since most of our members pretty much had their points of view on gay rights, abortion, Bush vs. Clinton, AIDS and the challenges of the Catholic Church well before they ever heard of FlyerTalk. But despite what they knew about those topics and others (or thought they knew), most did not know everything about how to get the optimum value and benefit from their loyalty programs.

That’s why we’re here and that's all we're trying to do. The only solution for what I think you might be seeing is for us to get completely out of any topic other than miles and points - and that just might get you an argument or two around here these days.

Again, your point of view is welcome here and I only hope that I've been able to provide you with some background on how I see things differently than you. There is no purpose served here to debate these things because frankly, that's not why I created FlyerTalk, and I'm not a good debater anyway.

Cheers.