Randy,

A sequence of events in the AA and this forum led me to ask you this:

On Sept. 1, AA instituted a policy of free drinks and snacks to top-level elite (Executive Platinum) passengers in coach.

Prior to that, there was a thread discussing rumors of such a change. This thread was deleted.

A new thread was started when the policy went into effect. There were several posts in it asking what happened to the earlier thread. These were deleted.

A thread in this forum asking why the above were done was also deleted.

(I am not discussing moderator actions here. I know that would be against FT rules. I don't even know if those deletions were made by moderators, and I have no way of finding this out. I have stated objective historical facts, which can be confirmed by hundreds of FTers and most likely by Web archiving sites on which such deleted material can usually be found. Perhaps the previous ORP post was worded in such a way as to be about moderator actions, in which case I understand its deletion.)

Discussions of rumored or hypothetical future changes to FF programs are a staple of most airline and hotel forums, such as the ongoing discussion of the future of bmi's Diamond Club program in the wake of LH's control of BD. Compared to most of the changes in those discussions, this change (a) was smaller; (b) was uniformly considered more positive; and (c) affected a smaller fraction of program members. Still, other threads consisting solely of rumors and discussions of rumors are not deleted - even when a rumor is negative in terms of our perception of the airline, which this one was not.

I would appreciate hearing from you why threads and posts on this topic were deleted, for our collective posting guidance going forward. (I am more interested in the general policy governing such deletions than in specifics of the actions taken here, so, again, this question is not about anything that moderators may or may not have done in this specific instance.)

As an AA forum reader I'm interested in this topic as well.

Hello Randy,

To build on Efrem's questions, perhaps you could also add some insight on why an earlier thread on this topic was deleted from your forum (and after a thread was vanquished on the AA forum at AA's request).

I posted to your forum at the specific instruction of two AA mods. My post included specific questions directed to you regarding the creep of corporate influences on FT. It was of general interest to the community because I received several PMs from members who I don't know saying they shared my concern. My question did not address moderation because the referenced deleted thread on the AA forum was not deleted by the AA mods but by someone in FT/IB management.

Your time is always appreciated.

Good question and one i don't mind asking though i had to do some research for. So stay with me as I try to answer.

Here's what I have found out and the reason it took me a little while is that I was not involved in the actions but feel comfortable describing and commenting on.

As it turns out, indeed there was a thread that was posted about this new policy and was subsequently deleted. As it turns out, it was a topic that the American Airlines legal department appealed to Internet Brands to delete. In the past, this same legal department has contacted me and apparently found it challenging since I am on record many times for telling them to pound sand. For the record, I have no qualms or disrespect for lawyers and am proud that many of them have found a home to participate in the topics of travel here on FlyerTalk. But I found that their "demands" were not founded in substance and were more of an attempt to censure the world. It started a long time ago with me blooding the younger members of that legal department and I eventually got passed up the system and continued to hold my position at the time. Now, Internet Brands legal department apparently made a decision based on what American's request was (and while I love to tell them to pound sand, keep reading because I may not have done that this time) passed along a direct order to one of our admins to delete the topic. I wasn't aware of that request and only found out later when looking into this but that in itself is not important. While Web site operators are typically not held responsible for the posts made by members who may post something less then acceptable, the current laws (as in real legal stuff) call for Web site operators to respond to requests based upon the DCMA digital copyright laws (even Google replies to this: http://www.google.com/dmca.html). Got it so far? I'm sure you and I would not like to see the future of FlyerTalk sued into oblivion because of a single issue. Now, because i was not involved in the original conversation between these two groups and have not asked since I'm more comfortable speaking from my own research and observations, I did take a look at the original thread. My guess, and it is only my guess, is that the American Airlines legal team asked for the thread to be deleted, not to keep secret from the public the topic or anything like that, but because the thread was started by what appears to be an employee of American Airlines. That throws a whole new spin on this. My guess is that they were protecting information released by an unauthorized employe, something that American ... and for the fact ... many other companies would also be very protective of. This information about free drinks and snacks is surely not top secret once the practice hits real-time as it has. Not just American Airlines, but almost all companies have some sort of policies that restrict "non-authorized" employees from leaking or talking about company news. Some of us have great admiration for Apple Computer and Steve Jobs, but know of their absolute and legal seeking remedies for keeping their news, their news. So while I could easily and don't mind commenting on spineless replies to legal requests, I also think that at times it makes sense to analyze these requests and also to put them into perspective. Was Internet Brands spineless in caving into American with this? As first I want to say yes. But as I looked over the thread and saw that the topic was introduced by an employee of American Airlines, it does seem that it is likely covered by the DCMA as copyright information by an employee until it became public policy and then anything goes.

I don't know anything about the subsequent thread -- wasn't focusing on it -- and can only assume that any posts deleted were those deleted for referring to the other, deleted thread which as you might be aware, is often a common practice for any thread, not just this one. And I'll correct you with one assumption. The thread in this forum regarding this same question was not deleted, it was closed pending my answer. The member asked me the question. At the time I was out traveling and since I did not know what the member was referring to, Moderators closed the thread pending my answer which is similar to what they have done with other threads when I'm not immediately available to answer a question.

As to your question regarding posting guidance. I'm with you, members should feel welcome to post and comment on any topics in the public domain. THe only exceptions will likely to be comments posted from actual employees of various companies and each of them will likely take a different tack on how much freedom and concern they have in their information being released in the public domain prior to it being public knowledge and in some cases, they will still take a more protected approach even after it is public only in regard to what is being posted by an employee.

What constitutes what is protected by the DCMA? I can't answer that. My rule of thumb to any lawyer i want to have pound sand is that they must without a doubt prove to me the "copyright" nature of their information. Unlike some pencil-pushing legal beagle in a Dilbert-like corporate cube, I actually know what is going on out there and what is in the blogoshere and other cloud of public information and always challenge the assumption that something is copyright. Again, all due respect to the legal community and companies like Internet Brands who have to measure and be accountable to things like the DCMA, but it is often too easy to point out something as being copyright in this day and age of the Internet.

And quit being so sensitive about the Moderators, this wasn't anything to do with them outside of things they have always done that makes for good thread management.

Answer all your questions? I can only try. But I certainly would not point to this as any example of a policy change or anything else. My guess is that you and probably most other members of FlyerTalk if you had corporate policies about which employees could pass along information or make comment on behalf of your company would have done something similar - request that the statement by the employee be deleted. Unfortunately I think in this case a few other regular members posts got caught up in the process which can happen at any time when the leadoff post is the only being acted upon. My apologies to those posts and posters.

I'll also post this reply in the other thread and reopen that since I have now answered both of them with a single post.

Cheers,
Randy

Actually, it was not deleted and remained in the public view. As explained in this answer, it is common when a member asks me a question for a moderator to close the thread to posts since the question was for me. We have found in the past that by leaving it open, other members will get in and take it off topic and it makes it very difficult then for me to really focus and reply to the original question. There is a huge difference between a question that is closed pending an answer vs. once that is deleted. Very rarely will you ever see one deleted and if so, it's probably only because it was spam or another member trolling for some personal glory, of which in a community is not all that necessary.

Something like this in which I start with zero knowledge can take a few hours to piece together and if I'm like you and many of our members, a few hours of uninterrupted research is only a dream!

Thanks for understanding and I have posted this answer in both questions.

Randy,

Thanks for an open and complete answer. That's what I came to expect of you over the years. It's nice to see that this part hasn't changed.

I agree, the "unauthorized employee" aspect puts a different spin on things from what it originally looked like. (I don't recall if one could tell from the original thread that the OP was an AA employee, but I probably wouldn't have paid much attention to it at the time even if it was obvious.)

If I wrote "deleted" rather than "closed" regarding the other thread here, that's my error, and I apologize for it.

Cheers,

Efrem

Thanks for understanding. AAnd I do hope you and other members understand it's not about FlyerTalk. The type of press that American Airlines put on in this situation would be similar to other Web sites (and those that don't believe it are in their personal denial). Here's a note on FatWallet to the same issue (just one of many and this was back in 2002!):
http://www.fatwallet.com/forums/fatwallet/126042

As for others posting the information, it was likely proof that it wasn't about the information, rather about who posted it originally.

See you around the board and glad i could get you an answer to your question.

I understand this. Unfortunately for AA, the people who make these decisions don't have its best business interests in mind. They're in all likelihood looking at it from the narrow perspective of their own jobs, and acting counter to what their top management would want. FT can be a valuable resource to AA and to other airlines, but if it's perceived as bowing to their heavy-handed wishes, even when they're legally in the right, the free flow of information may dry up and with it the value of the resource. This isn't to you, Randy, but to AA's lurkers who are probably reading this thread: don't kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Instead, let them come out - even if that might hurt a bit in the short run - and figure out how to harvest them.

Randy, let me also chime in here to thank you for a remarkably complete and candid explanation of what happened.