SkyMiler

Catman, you are it seems by your comments 100% supportive that MOST of the numerous FT members who have posted on THIS very ugly current thread should be forthwith suspended for 30 days?? Is that correct? Their comments cannot be construed as anything other than sustained 'personal attacks' IMO. You either are, or you are not supportive of this proposal - please be specific, as this is your thread. Should that thread have been locked in your judgment? Or, are comments made about one member of FT somehow less offensive than if made about another?

One of the clearly published "rules" all who use FT agree to are: PERSONAL ATTACKS - Personal attacks on individuals, insults and "flaming" will not be tolerated and will be removed. Despite the thread containing all three - personal attacks, insults and flaming - continually, the 'Moderator' is happy for that thread for remain there despite being asked about this by several posters on there, and has not closed or removed any posts after a week or so. So WHO draws the line?

Catman

Ultimately it's the moderators decision as well as Randy's and the Inside Flyer staff decision on what happens.

I disagree with how the whole thing was handled but I will accept it.

IMHO:

1. the threads (s) should have been locked
2. There should be suspensions of 7 days for all those involved.

That's why I proposed a code of ethics. Disappointed how the whole goldlust thing was handled.

But I'm not a moderator or a talk board member or work for Inside flyer. Just expressing one person's thoughts.

I'm going to try to make this the last time I'm going to speak on this.

Thanks for letting me vent.




[This message has been edited by Catman (edited 10-14-2001).]

Dorian

Catman,

What are you thoughts regarding a board member and a public personal attack?

Dorian

SkyMiler

Catman. I agree 100% with you. It will never in a million years actually happen of course, but I do agree with your answer and frustration. There is total inconsistency here. The 'Moderator' has posted he sees no problem with that thread apparently, despite it breaching the clear "new deal" FT guidelines. Yes several other far less inflammatory threads on that Forum have happily been locked.



[This message has been edited by SkyMiler (edited 10-14-2001).]

NJDavid

IMHO:

The "Talkboard" is already a tainted sham, with some members being amongst the worst offenders in this area.

just one example

It immediately and irreversably removes any credibility from what otherwise might have been a good initiative. Now (for me) its actions / announcements just go on the list of threads to be ignored as silly and useless.

I had suggested that a serious effort to create a credible advisory board would include a ban on any past offenders - or at the very least a ban on those who have not apologized for their atacking behavior. It's just sad that this was not considered.



[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 10-15-2001).]

svpii

Wharvey - guess my incredible sense of humor didn't translate I'm on my way out the door to GA for a week - with limited net access - but I wanted to quickly let you know that I wasn't singling you out for a cyber-slap. Although I detest the new smilies, I find great humor that we are actually trying to prioritize them as a critical FT issue I thought since I knew you pretty well, I could use you to make the point - my bad!!

I've peppered smilies all through this post to indicate that I'm in no way busting your chops

doc

---

Okay, maybe 1) "Moderators - what is/are their role(s)?" and addressing the flaming/personal attacks issue should actually be number one!

Incidentally, FWIW, I do NOT personally believe that the new TalkBoard is "tainted" - yet!

I do admittedly find it somewhat ironic, however, that moderators were grudgingly brought in as a very last resort to quell the persistent flaming and that one of the newly elected TB members has argued in favor of ridding the board of moderators entirely -even as their own abosolute refusal to restrain themselves and moderate their own posting behavior belied the problem!

Fortunately the past is not necessarily an absolute indicator of the future!

Today is another day!

geo1004

doc, I agree. Heck, the FT Board (as far as I know) hasn't even met yet to receive 'marching orders'... kinda
hard for them to be tainted yet.

And as far as who was elected... well, everyone was allowed to run and everyone was allowed to vote!

Rudi

what is the (geo will win) the S3 Challenge (by 10/18)?

markbach

I believe it refers to this.

Punki

doc writes:

I wholeheartedly agree doc. While the composition of the board is somewhat different than it would be if I had handpicked all the members, it was a fair and square election where as geo1004 says, everybody could vote and everybody could run.

The exciting thing about the board members is that they all appear to be very intelligent and have the courage of their convictions. I am very much looking forward to working with them and believe that working together as a group, we can be a very effective tool for the improvement of our wonderful community.

NJDavid

Osama Bin Laden is intelligent and has the courage of his convictions, as did the jet-pilot/hijackers that crashed the planes into NY and DC.

The American Nazi Party and the Skinheads also have the courage to boast about their beliefs.

The courage of one's convictions is a badge of one's honor as frequently as it is a mark of one's ignorance or hatred.

Convicts if you'll forgive the pun, should not vote, and are not permitted to serve in our society.

By allowing people who have committed personal attacks to wear the badge of "Flyertalk Advisory Board member", Randy's "Flyertalk" name is stained. By agreeing to serve with such individuals, one condones their actions.

Sorry Punki, I respect and admire your ability to turn the other cheek and see people at their best, but a realist would see we're fresh out of cheeks.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 10-15-2001).]

[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 10-16-2001).]

Punki

NJDavid, while I have not always agreed with everything posted by every board member, elected or appointed, I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt until they become true Convicts.

While I am not interested in going back and digging up bygone dirt, as a board member, I do invite you, and anyone else, to direct me any post election posts which you feel requires investigation and I promise you that I will not only investigate, but will bring it up to the other board members for a ban vote.

For me, creating a forum for civilized, reasonable exchange of ideas (however diverse they might be) is a prime objective.

NJDavid

Ignoring "bygone dirt" is wearing blinders.

Act, or don't act, because of your convictions, not because someone didn't commit the crime "while you happen to be looking."

If you're serious about acting, then start with the link in my post above, where one of the newly elected board members called me "a cancer" on the board twice, never apologized for the pain that causes anyone who has lost family to that disease, and publically stands by that statement.


And please remember the words of our President (paraphrased) if you provide safe harbor for the guilty, then you are just as guilty.


[This message has been edited by NJDavid (edited 10-15-2001).]

SkyMiler

NJDavid said:

NJDavid - reading your post above it seems clear to me at least from the thread you referenced you are referring to newly elected TalkBoard member cigarman in your responses based on his response to you there? Using the analogies to bin Ladem, skinheads and Nazis to anyone democratically elected to the TalkBoard is very rude IMO. If cigarman was elected and is but one of ten on the Board where is the problem with that?

Why would anyone regard the determinations of the entire 10 person TalkBoard as "silly and useless" just because you appear to have a differecne of opinion on some issues (and seems like they are internal CO policies from a first reading) with cigarman.

If you do not approve of one Senator from Kansas being elected does that make every ruling by the US Senate "silly and useless" or a "tainted sham" on that basis? I imagine cigarman gets but one vote on the Board? So does the Senator from Kansas. Were you precluded from standing for the Board for some reason - and if not, you may well have been elected instead?