kokonutz

It appears that several fters have been handed “time outs.” Seems like as good a time as any to express a couple of opinions:

1) I'm all in favor of punishments for blatant TOS violations. I'm wondering, though, if it wouldn't be more useful to let folks know who is serving a punishment and why. This would serve the dual purpose of letting folks know why folks have disappeared and might provide some guidance to others as to where the line is and when it has been crossed. IMHO, these goals far outweigh any potential embarrassment to the offender, especially since that potential embarrassment might serve as a deterrent to future transgressions. And when the "time out" is permanent, then where is the harm?

2) The term “time out” is condescending. We are not children, you are not our parents. Pick a better one.

Respectfully submitted.

PremEx

kokonutz pecks out on his keyboard: Done. Coma. Go back to your playing with your toys.

Now, on to really important issues for TalkBoard...

The elimination of sexually suggestive FT handles.

Kokonutz? Just what does that imply. Chocolate testicals? Is that supposed to be funny?

Don't get me wrong, but I like both chocolate and testicals as much as the next guy. Um. Or woman (most). Or TG (some). And everybody else (you know who you are).

But what does this imply? That I'm supposed to want to lick your b**ls with dopamine abandon?

Not this FTer.

And don't try giving me any of that "I'm just a breakfast cereal" crud. I fell for that once, buster.

Please, we've got to deal with this question once and for all. The future of our bulleting board rests on this.

Thanks for your consideration,
PremEx (Whose handle, despite what Arturo sometimes suggests, does not stand for Premature Exjackulation.)


[This message has been edited by PremEx (edited 03-09-2002).]

JRF

No! WE don't need to deal with this, YOU DO! What does Bob Jamison do, he can't use his initials as his user name.

This place is becoming just like the airlines we grow to despise. We will have so many rules, that it depends on what day and what hour you check.

Pathetic, enough said

[This message has been edited by JRF (edited 03-09-2002).]

svpii

Huh??? I want breathalyzer results on some of these posters

FWIW, I tend to agree with Koko's thoughts.. at least the part about disclosing those who have had their posting rights suspended.. call it time out or whatever. I agree w/ Koko's reasoning as well. I would be embarrassed to be suspended.. but I would get over it, and the evidence would be clear that if you cross the line, you pay the price. I understand Randy's instinct to protect his "family" as much as possible, but I think in this case, it's required.

wharvey

Good thing I was not drinking anything when I read PREMEX's post... that was sooooooooo funny!!!

Amazing what gets posted in the late hours... and here I thought PREMEX meant Premier Executive...

Had not noticed that people were serving timeouts... but, of course, it has been quieter around here for the past couple of days.

I believe this has come up before... I am all for "publicizing" when someone is serving a timeout (I hate that word too Kokonutz). If the only purpose is to "punish" the person, then it is OK... but I see this as an opportunity to help the community learn about what is and is not acceptable.

William

arturo

premexecushun,

arturo ownly kno wat he heer frum hes soarses.

an, as phar as chocklat technicals, wel, arturo leaf thos 'tween yu an senor nutz.


------------------
Loving, Caring, Honest, Intelligent, Empathetic, Creative, and Giving.

cactuspete

I agree completely, and in fact have argued this point in the past. However, Randy, at least at that time, took the opposite position. http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ft...ML/000330.html

Dorian

I too remember this discussion coming up in the past.

I believe I was in favour of some type of disclosure as it would create further disincentive to break TOS.

Dorian

magic111

Why just have disclosure.
Perhaps we can have the individual(s) placed in a pillory at the next ft gathering.
And then perhaps we would place sheep in front of them for the evening so as to have the punishment be even more excruiciating. And for sure a video uplink must be provided to the world-wide web so that everyone who is unable to attend can witness the punishment live.

Dorian

All excellent ideas!

Punki

I don't know, magic111, you start bringing sheep to a Flyer Talk gathering and the results are just too unpredictable. Even some of those in the stocks could turn out to be hopeless voyeurs who end up mistakenly assuming that they are being rewarded for their wonderful senses of humor.

Seriously, I have very ambivalent feelings on this issue but I think I finally weigh in on the side of a simple statement like:

"John345 was issued a 7 day suspension for activity in this thread http://www.flyertalk.com/pasttalk/ft...ML/002531.html "

As it is right now, temporary suspensions (which term I like way better than "times out") just seem to stimulate idle speculation and and a flurry of e-mail rumors, and I know I end up confused as to who was really suspended and the real reasons therefore. In the end, I think a simple statement of the facts would actually cause a lot less disruption and would (as my sometimes surprisingly brilliant friend koko has indicated) educate the rest of us as to the limits acceptable on Flyer Talk.

Law Lord

The names of the suspended FlyerTalkers aren't as important as the reasons for the suspension: e.g., an announcement could state:

"Two FTers have lost their posting privileges for 1 week for violating the TOS prohibition on ______________ ."

Who the people are isn't that important to me, but I recognize that their identities might be important to others.

[edited to add quotation marks]

[This message has been edited by Law Lord (edited 03-09-2002).]

Punki

The flaw with that approach, Law Lord, is that it fails to help the general membership, and in many cases even the offending party, understand what is and is not acceptable on FlyerTalk and it encourages speculation and rumors and causes serious confusion.

At the current time, for example, there are pretty well documented rumors floating about that a number of well-known Flyer Talkers have been given temporary suspensions. Some of these purported suspensions make a great deal of sense, but there is one in particular that totally baffles me as it involves a FlyerTalker who is always intelligent, concise and fair in his/her posts and to my knowledge has never been involved in any TOS violations.

This is totally perplexing, particiularly in an atmosphere where numerous other well-known FlyerTalkers have consistently and flagrantly violated the TOS with no consequences whatsoever. IMHO, the edification and enlightenment of thousands of innocent FlyerTalkers outweighs the value of protecting a few Flyer Talkers who step over the line and refuse to modify their own posts when offered an opportunity to do so.

I am further confused as to why there are some occasions when the names and reasons for suspensions/bannings are posted, like here:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/Forum75/HTML/000017.html

and some occasions when they are kept secret.

Personally I believe that things would probably run a lot more smoothly on Flyer Talk if both moderation and the announcement of suspensions/bannings were as consistent as humanly possible.

We must all bear in mind, of course, that all of these processes are subjective by nature and that even the very best of moderators will from time to time make a decision that is questionable. This is the primary reason that, whenever possible, I strongly advocate moderators offering the offending party an opportunity to moderate his or her own post prior to outside modertion. That is a truly educational and personally enriching process for the person who has stepped over the line, rather than a public punishment.

Law Lord

Punki, you and I disagree about the merits of posting the names of offenders. I'm not suggesting that FT protect the guilty out of some compassion for the guilty. I do believe, as I think you do, that FT should describe the offense in enough detail for all members to know exactly why the conduct is "over the line." I didn't fill in a particular example above, but here are three examples of what I have in mind: "A member's posting privileges were suspended for 1 week because the member [posted the same material in 8 fora and did not remove the duplicate posts after being warned] [called another member a "_________" in violation of the TOS] [used offensive racial/ethnic terms to describe a third person]" I think these would give any reasonable reader a clear idea of what isn't allowed, and for what offense the suspension was issued.

In the link you included, I believe the names of the FTers were themselves the reason for terminating their privileges. IIRC, FT decided that the persons who opened those accounts devised those names specifically to insult (or more charitably, to express a negative opinion about) a prolific Australian FTer -- the names themselves were the offense.

Rudi

I just post here, so that you can notice that I haven't been suspended (yet) ...

(from Denver,CO ... minutes after the Avalanche game)