In this thread, I made the following proposal, but the thread was closed soon thereafter, and I don't know if it got to the right people for review.

While I understand that the employee posters should know what they are getting into and take the necessary steps to protect themselves, it seems wrong that the community has no official means to condemn this behavior.

What think? (Sorry, I just saw the Steve Ballmer Titans of Tech episode and I'm totally in love with this phrase!)

------------------
robb is clearly within the margin of sampling error - Googlism

[This message has been edited by robb (edited 01-29-2003).]

I respectfully disagree. Examples abound where employers should be notified and disciplined, if the employer deems it appropriate.

Several months ago bdschobel alerted DL to an employee poster who threatened that he/she could do unspecified harm to the members who don't try very hard to remain anonymous, like Bruce. Should Bruce have been disciplined for his justifiable conduct?

No disclaimer legally protects employees who post here once they have disclosed the identity of their employers, and that includes employees of the US government.

Further, your proposal attempts to regulate conduct that does not directly impact FT. Additionally, your new rule would only punish members who disclose to the community that they reported a FTer to the alleged employer - while not touching a member who reports on an employee but makes no such announcement to the community.

So if I "tell on" a member, I've only violated your new TOS rule if I let FT know what I did.

I'll think of other objections later, these are just the five minute answers.

Don't want members trying to get other members fired or disciplined? Teach people to keep their employers a secret. Disclose too much info, you make yourself vulnerable.

I agree with Robb's proposal, at least insofar as it applies to "non-employee" FT members. It seems to me that this is already covered generally by the T&C, but making it explicit can't hurt.

What do you mean by "non-employee?"

I also agree with the proposal. Part of what's good about having a discussion on the Internet is the ability to have candid discussions, without prejudices or fear of retaliation.

It isn't the business of FTers to be policing what other members do at work or in their personal lives. I'm sure most people have superiors at work to do that for them.

While I agree with FWAAA's example of Bruce, it seems to me that Bruce was simply responding to another FT member attempting to harm him. I don't know the whole story, but I think I could agree with his actions. On the other hand, an FT member suggested that he/she might attempt to get in touch with my employer because he/she does not agree with the philosophy that I espouse in OMNI. Unjustifiable, if you ask me.

d

While I agree with the spirit of the proposed addition, I must nonetheless disgree with incorporating the text into the FlyerTalk TOS.

There are instances where contacting a poster's employer may be prudent. For example, unless explicitly authorized by the airline, airline employees are NOT allowed to interact with customers in mediums such as FlyerTalk. While "harmless" posts by an airline employee can ostensibly be treated with benign neglect by the community, posts that in any way harm the airline or its image are over the line and should be reported to the airline immediately, so that it may take the appropriate disciplinary actions against the offender.

Even for non-industry employees, there could be (albeit rare) instances where a poster is divulging proprietary or otherwise confidential information, and the release of such information will cause harm to the company(ies) involved. In these infrequent instances, it would be prudent to contact the employer (if it has already been publicly stated) so that the breach of company security can be repaired.

Honestly, the best policy on this issue is for FlyerTalkers to NOT divulge the identities of their employers except to trusted individuals over a non-electronic medium.

[This message has been edited by avek00 (edited 04-11-2003).]

I agree that it is prudent for employee posters or others with a significant need to protect their personal info to conceal any identifying information.

i disagree that flyertalkers should have any obligation or authority to police those employees on behalf of their employers.

The degree to which this would be (and has been) selectively reported only when flyer talkers were having personal disagreements with a poster would be to the detriment and shame of flyer talk.

I have twice now seen a poster get into a snit with an employee poster and then try to get them fired by reporting them to their employer. A disagreement in cyberspace is one thing - deciding to try to get someone fired is totally another.

I made this proposal only so that we, as a community had an official and clear means to rebuke such behavior and to make a distinction between the right of the member to do whatever he chooses and the right of the community to explicitly oppose that behavior.

See, e.g., Brian's post halfway down the JWH good-bye thread here:
http://www.flyertalk.com/travel/fttr...ML/011186.html . An FTer apparently attempting to get another (non- travel industry) FTer disciplined or fired (as opposed to the situation above where an official/unofficial lurker was threatened).

Thanks for the link. I guess I'm not the only victim of this stalking these days.

d